17 Common Chalet Myths, Unverified Theories and Misinformation
A myth is defined as: “a widely held but false belief or idea.”
A personal theory is defined as: “an idea or explanation that an individual develops based on their own experiences, observations, and understanding of the world.”
Misinformation is defined as: “false or inaccurate information which gets the facts wrong.”
A fact is defined as: “an idea or information that consistently has been proven to be true in overall, broad and general reality.”
Therefore, since myths are false ideas and personal theories are only based on an individual’s reality and misinformation gets the facts wrong, none are facts.
How did Chalet myths get started? What are some of the common personal theories regarding Chalet, and what are the verified Chalet facts? How has Chalet misinformation spread? When it comes to Chalet myths, both collectors and sellers have contributed to the rise and persistence of Chalet fiction—rather than fact. In the past, this was largely due to the limited availability of verified resources about Chalet and other Canadian glasshouses from the same era.
Thankfully, our knowledge pool has grown largely with the help of Chalet artists and discoveries made by collectors. We now have more verified resources, and access to them has expanded significantly. There are many links here to other articles as well as direction to specific page references in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued.” Please investigate as the referenced articles and pages provide exhaustive detail and verified facts - both of which may help you with questions or clear up confusion. Despite the growth of resources, it does remain challenging to stop the spread of myths, as many collectors—and many sellers—do not research or make use of the factual information now available. In some cases, even when evidence clearly disproves personal theories, some individuals remain strongly attached to their beliefs and are reluctant to accept firsthand knowledge or documentation found in catalogs, original photographs, advertisements, or newspaper accounts. Furthermore, some of these individuals not only hold on to their personal theories but also present them to others as fact. And so, the cycle of misinformation continues.
Let’s specifically address some of these myths. They are presented in no particular order.
The myth that the Chalet piccoli and Lorraine Glass Industries minis were salesmen samples.
In reality, we have first-hand, factory-floor verified accounts from several Chalet artists (not just one) confirming that these small scale Chalet forms were made at the end of the workday to use up remaining crystal and colour. Many of these pieces are unique in form, while others are “mini-me” versions—like those shown below—of larger production designs. Some are signed or stickered, while others are not. However, none of them were created as salesmen samples.
9 inch “mini-me” Chalet “swan” centerpiece at right in foreground. This is a typical height for these particular piccoli. Production heights range from 10 inches to 18 inches.
With regard to Lorraine, we have catalog proof that many of their “mini-me” forms were marketed as an actual line/series – Assortment 4000.
The myth that the Chalet and other glasshouse artists were “partners in creativity” with regard to the development of forms and colours.
This was definitely not the case. Chalet, Lorraine, and EDAG were glass factories—not studios. We have first-hand accounts from artists who worked at all three companies confirming that the owners dictated how, when, and what was produced. Artists did not have the authority to independently develop pieces for production. If a sample form was required to assess its potential as a production piece, that decision was made by the owners. That said, artists were allowed to create personal pieces on their own time at the factory, using company materials and equipment.
A piece of glass in one of the Chalet factory ovens. Cornwall, 1965.
The myth that there was a “pre-Chalet” and that the “Canada Art” engraving was done during this time.
Newspaper articles, documents, and filmed interviews with the owners provide us with well-established historical timelines for both Murano Glass and Chalet Artistic Glass. In addition, marked Chalet Artistic Glass production pieces support the conclusion that the idea of “pre-Chalet” production is a personal theory rather than a verified fact. The “pre-Chalet” theory has been widely circulated and, understandably, has caused some confusion among collectors. However, it's important to distinguish between personal interpretation and documented fact when discussing “Canada Art.” Are there verified facts? Yes. A range of supporting materials—such as catalog pages, newspaper articles, interviews, and photographs of marked pieces—was thoroughly presented in both Chalet Crystal Clear and Chalet Crystal Clear Continued. For the purposes of this article, and to help ensure clarity and accessibility, I will summarize and highlight some of that evidence again here.
In years past, the provenance of pieces engraved with “Canada Art” was uncertain and often the subject of much theory and debate. However, it was firmly established—and well-supported by evidence—that the “Canada Art” signature appears exclusively on forms made by Chalet. This conclusion has been reached through extensive research, the careful elimination of other potential glasshouses, and confirmation from both Chalet catalogs and firsthand accounts from Chalet artists.
However, three key questions remained unanswered. These gaps in information opened the door to myth, personal opinion, and speculation—some of which have been presented as “fact” despite a lack of verified evidence.
· When were the markings done?
· Who did the markings? Was it a collector, an independent boutique or distributor, or Chalet themselves?
· Why were the markings done?
When was the engraving done?
The timing of the “Canada Art” engraving remains a point of discussion. One theory—the “pre-Chalet” hypothesis—suggests that only early production pieces were marked "Canada Art," and that these pieces were created before the company's name change, based primarily on visual characteristics. Specifically, it claims the pieces have a more “crude” appearance, show limited variation in colour and shape, and feature colours considered atypical of Chalet, thereby implying the existence of a separate “pre-Chalet” production phase. However, this theory has not been supported by hard evidence or formal study. In Chalet Crystal Clear Continued, these claims were directly addressed: 52 “Canada Art” pieces were presented, examined in detail, and compared to Chalet Canada branded pieces. This analysis was further supported by catalog page references, helping to clarify and contextualize the production of these works. The end result was that this speculation was not verifiable through the empirical evidence presented in rebuttal.
In addition, for several other reasons, the "pre-Chalet" theory does not hold up under scrutiny.
First, let us pinpoint to what time period "pre-Chalet" refers:
This term obviously refers to a period before the name change from Murano Glass to Chalet Artistic Glass and before the company relocation from Montreal to Cornwall.
So then, let's look at the verified timeline of the company’s history:
· May 1960: The name changes from Les Industries de Verre et Miroirs to Murano Glass. The company begins producing Venetian-styled art glass.
· After 16 months, in the September of 1961, Murano Glass shifts its production focus from Venetian design to "more Canadian" styles. However, production of new designs is limited as the company lasts only 11 more months and during this time, it has had very limited production with income primarily coming from government programs focused on training new glass blowers. These are verified facts and can be attributed directly to owner Angelo Tedesco as stated in an April 15, 1962, National Post article, Montreal.
· July 1, 1962: Montreal, Quebec, Murano Glass operations cease due to a “unexplained” fire. The 3 owners had already finalized arrangements to move to Cornwall, Ontario and were setting up for Ontario production.
· September 14, 1962: Cornwall, Ontario, Chalet Artistic Glass production starts. The “Canadian” vision is continued. Focus is on design and production of art glass – not training of new glassblowers.
To date, we have only discovered one form that can be conclusively identified as being made by Murano Glass. Its design appears to be from the company’s "Canadian" inspired production, therefore dating between September 1961 and June 30, 1962. However, its label still describes it as “Venetian.” Although it can be dated as “pre-Chalet,” it bears a sticker with the “Murano Glass” company name —not a hand-engraved “Canada Art” signature. Moreover, there is no type of evidence (written, oral or physical on any art glass form) that Murano Glass used more than this one branding.
Photograph courtesy of 50 Shades member Daniel Lynch.
Chalet Artistic Glass opened in Cornwall in the September of 1962. These three pieces bear the hand-engraved “Canada Art” signature and are dated 1962. Significantly, these forms are shown on the 1963 Chalet Artistic Glass “Items Available” catalog page.
Vase at left from the collection of Deborah Patterson. Vase at right from the collection of Brad McGillivray.
As are many other “Canada Art” engraved pieces. The 12 examples that follow also appear on the same 1963 Chalet Artistic Glass catalogue page. They are not a “rehash” but are completely different forms from each other and the ones shown above. Indeed, many of them are iconic Chalet pieces that were produced during the entire operation of the company. Verified proof that these forms were being produced and sold in Cornwall after the company’s name change and relocation and not from a “pre-Chalet” period. Note that the style of the Murano Glass stickered piece shown above DOES NOT appear on this 1963 or any other chalet catalogue page.
Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 35 piece on left from the collection of Kevin Hall. Photograph of Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #B 3 courtesy of collector David Sutherland.
Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 8 piece on left from the collection of Jonathon Tremblay. Photograph of Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 42 courtesy of collector Deborah Patterson
Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 1 piece on left from the collection of Alex Wicks Photograph of Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 19 courtesy of collector Brad McGillivray.
Photograph of Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 5 piece on left courtesy of Ryan Shawn Robertson. Photograph of Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #A 37 courtesy of collector Deborah Patterson.
Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #V29 vase on left from the collection of Kevin Hall. Photograph of Chalet Artistic Glass inventory #V 32 courtesy of a 50 Shades member who wishes to remain private.
The 1963 styling of the iconic Chalet BB1 basket. This piece is also engraved with the “Canada Art” signature. This basket style is frequently seen with the “Canada Art” engraving. From my personal collection.
And a last example. The Chalet BB 5 basket which is shown on a much later Chalet catalog page. Note that the company has moved to photography instead of hand drawn images:
The photos of pieces from the 1963 Chalet Artistic Glass “Items Available” catalogue page provide clear evidence that the “Canada Art” engraved signature appears on Chalet pieces from 1962 and 1963. Moreover, no examples of “Canada Art” engraved forms have been found that are dated earlier than 1962. Furthermore, no other evidence of any type proving a “pre-Chalet” period has been put forward in proof that this personal theory is an objective and provable fact and not just a subjective belief.
2 other critical and definitive pieces of evidence that further prove that the “Canada Art” engraving was done at Chalet after the Cornwall opening:
1. “Canada Art” is not the only hand-engraved signature found on Chalet pieces. 6 other engravings are also common to Chalet pieces. None of these markings are associated in any way with a “pre-Chalet” period or Murano Glass. However, they are most definitely associated with Chalet Artistic Glass post 1962.
Especially this first signature:
An iconic branding “Chalet Canada” but as an engraved signature. On an iconic Chalet Artistic Glass form – another BB 1 basket. This basket is not only shown on the 1963 “Items Available” catalog page, it appears on other later catalog pages. Further proof that Chalet Artistic Glass commonly did engraved signatures. Photo courtesy of Roy Prins.
More engraved signatures. This time on pieces sold by established Chalet Artistic Glass retailers:
From left to right: Birks, Simpsons, Russel’s, Hals Hart and Lindsay Studios.
2. And another piece of very conclusive evidence disproving “pre-Chalet” is that “Canada Art” engravings have also been found along with Chalet retailer markings on pieces. These retailers are, again, not associated with any “pre-Chalet” period or Murano Glass but are verified Chalet Artistic Glass retailers post 1962. In fact, Birks did not become a Chalet retailer until circa 1965.
Birks inventory sticker with “Canada Art” engraved signature. From the collection of 50 Shades member Bob Burgess.
Vase with Birks and “Canada Art engraved signatures (left) from the collection of Stephen Malcolmson. Basket with Russel’s and “Canada Art engraved signatures (right) from the collection of Dustin Rusnell.
Ashtray with Hal’s Hart etching and “Canada Art engraved signature from the collection of Donna Moore.
In light of the evidence presented here, continuing to promote or believe in the myth that “Canada Art” is “pre-Chalet” is difficult to justify. It suggests either a gap in understanding or a deliberate disregard for the extensive body of verified information—including the company’s documented historical timeline, interviews with Chalet owners featured in newspapers and National Film Board productions, firsthand accounts from artists, Chalet catalog pages, retailer branding, and photographs of marked pieces.
Who did the engraving?
One remote possibility is that the pieces could have been marked by a collector. Having had thousands of pieces myself over the years that have come and gone and stayed, it is feasible that the number of "Canada Art" pieces known or seen could have been accumulated by one person, only to be dispersed over time as they were sold, traded, or gifted. However, although possible, I do not find this explanation plausible, as there is no logical reason for a collector to engrave pieces. It has been suggested that it might have been done for insurance purposes. Yet, if for insurance, the method raises a question: wouldn't it make more sense for a piece to be numbered and photographed rather than engraved with a signature? Why put an engraved name on the base of a vase? One possible answer is that it's part of a valuable collection. However, the vase shown above was engraved with the date "1962," a time when Chalet was not yet considered a collector's item of such value that would command or justify the cost of insuring.
Another possibility is that the markings could have been made by an independent boutique or distributor. However, we have found six different electro-pencil hand-engraved signatures on verified Chalet pieces. Sometimes, these signatures are standalone but as they have also been accompanied by additional markings as shown earlier, these facts negate this argument.
In my opinion, the most plausible scenario, is that some pieces—like the ones presented here—started being marked at the Chalet factory in the very early days. All three owners were glass blowers, and Angelo Tedesco was also a professional glass etcher. While these "Canada Art" markings do not have a professional appearance, the same can be said for the "Angelo" signatures that Maestro Rossi often etched for his customers. This is also true for many of the engravings that Altaglass artists put on their work. See the relevant sections in the chapter “Contemporary Glasshouses of the Chalet Era” in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued.”
Since two engraved signatures appear to be Chalet company markings and the other four are for Chalet retailers, it seems logical to assume that all six were done by Chalet. However, Chalet artist Antonio Tedesco, who worked the Chalet molleria, had no knowledge of these engravings when I showed him a "Canada Art" hand-engraved piece in 2010, nor have any of the other artists I have spoken with about this over the years. Therefore, it is also safe to assume that either the Chalet owners, sales team, or management were responsible for these markings. Please refer to the chapter “The Chalet Hand Engraved Signatures” in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued” for more detail.
Why was the engraving done?
Very significantly, as stated earlier, although the artists were unwavering in their assertion that "Canada Art" engravings were done on pieces produced by Chalet, they had no knowledge of who did the marking or when and why it was done. As stated, this includes Antonio Tedesco, who was responsible for the molleria and inventory marking. If this mark was being applied to regular production pieces, why wasn't he involved? His job was to polish and grind the bases, apply inventory stickers and other branding, and etch the "Chalet Canada" signatures. It is not logical to assume that he would not have at least some knowledge of routine production piece marking being done by others.
I honestly think that we will never know with verified certainty. I believe, as stated earlier, that all the engravings were likely done by the company owners, management, or sales team, and for reasons connected to sales and customer fulfillment. Supporting evidence includes the pieces we find that retain retailers’ inventory labels as well as the "Canada Art" or other engraved signatures.
Another theory is that the markings were for Chalet inventory purposes. However, this is contradicted by substantive and concrete evidence, such as inventory stickers, sales brochures, and catalog sheets, which show that Chalet production pieces were not named but assigned a letter and/or number(s), consistent with the practices of other glasshouses. Furthermore, if production marking was the intent, we would expect to see many more "Canada Art" pieces, considering Chalet was producing hundreds of pieces daily, even in the early years.
Additionally, there is no logical purpose for associating a specific name with inventory in relation to production during the early years or any subsequent years. Using the same name does not differentiate one piece from another, so the practicality of such a practice, especially for sales ordering or fulfillment, is questionable. Hand engraving each piece for inventory purposes would also be time-consuming and, consequently, an expensive process - even more so than machine etching. Applied inventory labels are a much more cost-effective and a widespread practice — we have seen their use by many Chalet and Lorraine retailers as well.
I also believe that “Canada Art” might have been a branding that was going to be used on Chalet seconds. We have proof in the form of Chalet company advertising that seconds were sold from the factory – perhaps they were toying with the idea of marketing them more formally? Developing a branding strategy?
I bet you a “Chalet unicorn” that we will never know for sure!
The myth that Chalet did not produce pieces in a “true fire-engine red.” Well, since a picture is worth a 1,000 words – voila!
Well, if this isn’t red, I don’t know what is! This stunning fingertip vases blazes in the displays of Cindy Bishop-Laughlin.
It is hard to stop with just one - so I won’t!
This ashtray set the heart of 50 Shades member Darlene Spence on fire.
Just a few more:
“4 curl” at top left from the collection of 50 Shades member Dwain Robertson. “Crazy fingers” at bottom left from Christine Mantler Spain. Photograph in centre courtesy of Deborah Patterson. Red mini “crossed arms” from the collection of Jeremiah Shaver. “Molar” candleholder from the collection of Karin Martin. “Swan dish” at bottom right from the collection of the Cornwall Community Museum.
And these 10 pieces are just a sampling from the dozens of “fire engine” forms in various styles that I have on file. Do not assume that just because you or a fellow collector have not seen something that it does not exist. Like I say: “Never say Never.”
The myth that Chalet Artistic Glass was the first art glass company in Canada.
This is an interesting one as it originated from Chalet itself. Regardless of this myth’s origin, it is false. Altaglass (Medicine Hat, Alberta) was Canada’s first and longest running glass factory – from 1950-1988. It is true, however, that Chalet was the first Canadian art glass company to export their product worldwide. For a quick summary regarding the Canadian glasshouses of the Chalet era, please refer to this article. Detailed information (historical photos, catalogue pages, hundreds of pictures of pieces, original pricing and advertising, newspaper articles) regarding same is found in an 181 page chapter in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued.”
The myths that Chalet Artistic Glass only produced large and hand-blown “stretch” art glass.
I see this misinformation very frequently online – in collectors’ groups that are not concentrated on Canadian glass and on Pinterest postings. The truth is that not only did Chalet produce many smaller pieces like the animal figurines but they also had an extensive range of hand-molded glass. Moreover Chalet also produced completely mouth-blown pieces.
The bonboniere forms are the most iconic of the Chalet hand-molded pieces:
A whimsical display of some of the Chalet bonboniere forms from the collection of 50 Shades member Jo Highland.
And there are 3 distinct Chalet lines of larger hand-molded pieces – the “Canadiana Cranberry,” the “End of Day” and the “Opal with Gold Flecking” branded lines.
Baskets from the 3 Chalet hand-molded lines – “Opal with Gold Flecking” at rear, “End of Day” at front left and “Canadiana Cranberry” at front right. Note the iconic Maestro Sergio Pagnin designed “face prunts” on all three.
Chalet also produced completely mouth blown pieces. These are much less common but do exist. The best known examples of these are the Chalet fruit but there are some mouth-blown vases as well.
Photographs courtesy of collector Lori Hazuka Morin.
More examples of Chalet mouth-blown apples but in a different style:
Green stemmed apple from the collection of Jo Highland. Very rare.
“Never say Never.” A mouth blown Chalet vase:
From my personal collection.
The myth that certain forms/colours were developed for exclusive distribution or retailing by select distributors or resellers.
In particular, I have seen quite a few statements with regard to Eaton’s having had exclusivity with regard to colour and form. Specifically with exclusivity with regard to the colour blue - this is not the case. Blue was one of the three colours in which forms were produced when Chalet Artistic Glass opened in Cornwall in the September of 1962. We have visual, tangible proof of this via Chalet’s earliest catalog page “Items Available” which is dated 3/63. Eaton’s was not yet a Chalet retailer when Chalet began production in Ontario.
I have chosen two iconic pieces (BB 1 and A 5) as the perfect illustrations that Eaton’s also did not have exclusivity in form. They also serve as further examples of non-exclusivity in colour.
The Chantili branded BB1 basket on right from the collection of 50 Shades member Daniel Lynch.
The Birks marked A 5 cigar bowl at left from the collection of Wallace Addison White.
To add further verisimilitude, more examples follow showing the same forms being retailed/distributed by more than one company. Clearly, there is ample evidence readily at hand that soundly debunks this myth:
Orange vase (top left) from the collection of Reg Paulson.
Stickered ashtray at left from the collection of the Cornwall Community Museum. Chantili engraved at right from the collection of Pina Pina
Swan bonboniere at left retains its original Roycraft sticker and piece at right retains the small Chantili label. Both Montreal area Chalet distributors.
Chalet etched mushroom at left from the collection of Cindy Bishop- Laughlin. Chantili stickered mushroom at right from the collection of Melissa Patterson.
“Splash” on left, from the collection of Stephen Malcolmson, is marked with the large Chantili label. “Splash” on right, from the collection of Deborah Patterson, is marked with the large black Chalet label.
The myth that Chantili was a standalone glasshouse.
Chantili was not a glasshouse. They were a distributor of Chalet product in the Montreal area. This company operated out of the Place Bonaventure Business Centre located at 800 Rue de la Gauchetiere Ouest, Montreal. For extensive details and photographs regarding Chalet lines distributed, Chantili markings etc., please reference this Web site article and the Chantili section in the “Chalet Distributors” chapter in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued” on pages 176 through 187.
The myths that Maestro Angelo Rossi founded Chalet, created the cranberry colour or took over Chalet in 1975 and that the company continued under his leadership
Angelo Rossi was a glass blower at both Lorraine Glass industries and Chalet Artistic Glass before 1975. However, he was not a founder or owner of either – just a glass artist at both companies.
Angelo Rossi did not create the formula for the “rubino” coloured glass at Chalet or anywhere else for that matter. “Rubino” (ruby red) coloured glass, was likely developed in the Roman Empire. While the exact date of its invention is unknown, historians believe a form of cranberry glass, which is closely related to “rubino” glass, was first made in the late Roman Empire, around the 4th century CE. Owner and Master glassblower Sergio Pagnin was Chalet’s chemist and was solely responsible for creating ALL the colours used at Chalet. The Chalet colour formulas were a closely guarded secret and brought over from Italy.
Angelo Rossi, with a partner, did buy Chalet’s finished inventory and equipment at Chalet’s bankruptcy sale. The equipment included the molds for the bonboniere and the forms in the hand-molded lines. However, he did not acquire the company name. He opened Artistic Glass and Lighting in the same Harbour Road location (rented) from where the Chalet factory had operated and some of the Chalet staff and glass artists worked with him there. Rossi went out of his way through his advertising and naming of lines to perpetuate the myth that Chalet Artistic Glass continued. However, his new company was a completely new entity. For more details, please see this article and refer to the Angelo Rossi Cornwall glasshouses chapter in “ Chalet Crystal Clear Continued.”
Just one example of Rossi’s attempt to trade on Chalet’s proven track record and confuse consumers. This was run in the Standard Freeholder on December 29, 1977. Courtesy of the Cornwall Community Museum.
The myth that incomplete/off register engravings are a branding from an earlier company name.
The etching machines were hand placed and hand operated. Moreover, they were difficult to manipulate and the “Chalet Canada CORNWALL” etching machine was so prone to malfunction that it was abandoned. Therefore, no etched signature that was done was the same as the ones that came before. Often, the etched signatures were off-register, some blurred, some incomplete, some upside down, duplicates and triplicates base signatures are even found. All are examples of the natural variations which occur in a hand-done process and are simply mismarks. I have heard it stated as fact that if you find a piece (see base of bowl below) that is etched “Chalet” instead of “Chalet Canada” that this is a piece from when the company was called “Chalet.” This is not the case. Chalet Artistic Glass was never called “Chalet” or “Chalet Canada.” The company’s name was changed from Murano Glass to Chalet Artistic Glass for the move to Cornwall in September, 1962. For many other examples of etching and sticker mismarks, please see the chapter “Chalet Unusual” in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued”. Mismarks are detailed on pages 62 through 71.
An incomplete etched signature is merely a mismark.
The myth that there is an abundance of “fake Chalet” out there.
This myth stems directly from personal conjecture and/or lack of knowledge of how the glass was produced at the Chalet factory.
I remain highly skeptical of claims that Chalet markings or pieces have been widely falsified. Realistically, what would be the incentive to invest time and money into such efforts? To date, no one has presented credible evidence that Chalet stickers or engravings have been counterfeited on any significant scale. Nor have we seen a noticeable influx—or even a small wave—of “faked” Chalet pieces, which in itself suggests this concern may be more myth than reality. The only confirmed instance of alteration I’m aware of is a verified rumour involving a collector who drilled Chalet-made crystal twist vases to create lamps, which were then sold as factory originals. So, whenever I hear someone assert, “That’s a fake,” my response is always the same: I ask to see the proof.
When I encounter design differences, a "Never Say Never" piece, or a new label or signature, my approach to what I have not seen before shifts. The most common answer to design differences is variation. These pieces are hand-made and as such each varies from one to another – sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Not only do I consider possibilities like variation, but I also consider that the piece in question may be a second, or a special order, or an artist's sample, or a product or branding test piece. It might even have branding from a Chalet distributor or competitor of whom we had not yet been aware. My perspective is shaped by both my professional expertise in the workplace and my experiences as a collector. Accordingly, I remain skeptical about jumping to conclusions of forgery and fakery.
Why? There are both long and short answers to this.
Firstly, over the last few years, we were still uncovering brandings from Chalet and other glasshouses. Our base of verified information is still forming, as some areas remain incomplete. It is also unrealistic to expect this information to ever be fully complete, given the lack of preserved history for many glasshouses and artists from this era. We do not have the long-established and detailed resources available to collectors in other arenas.
Here are two examples illustrating this very point. When Chalet Crystal Clear was written in 2019, we had just discovered brandings on indisputably Chalet made pieces that were confusing. Some thought they were "fakes," others suspected distributors, and some believed retailers were involved. However, we later confirmed that these brandings were none of those. So, what did these new labels actually signify?
The label CCI on the Chalet swan bomboniere (at left) is not from a Chalet distributor or retailer. Rather, it comes from a short-lived Toronto glasshouse, Crystal Craft Industries, in the 1980s. See pages 317 through 321 in Chalet Crystal Clear Continued. Why is it on a Chalet piece? Morris Jaslow, who purchased the Chalet finished inventory and partnered with Angelo Rossi at Artistic Lighting in Cornwall (pages 441 to 444) also owned this glasshouse. Clearly, he still had Chalet-made inventory on hand. I verified this with former Chalet artist Roberto De Marchi, who worked with Jaslow both in Cornwall and later in Toronto; he confirmed that this was indeed remaining Chalet stock and not newly made Crystal Craft art glass.
Meanwhile, the Saint Zotique labels (middle and at right), while not on Chalet-made glass, are on glass made by former Chalet artists. These are examples of pieces and branding from Angelo Tedesco’s Quebec glasshouse Saint Zotique - another short-lived venture. Please refer to pages 462 through 464 for details. So, in both cases, there is no “fakery”—just brandings from glasshouses that we had not yet discovered or verified. For details regarding Chalet brand testing which also has some relevance to this myth, please refer to pages 104 through 115 in the Chapter “Chalet Unusual” in “CCCC.”
I also want to emphasize that just because a piece is unfamiliar or seems “different,” that alone is not evidence of a forged label or a faked form. More often than not, others have encountered the same piece before—it’s simply new to you. This is a common occurrence. Occasionally, we do come across a Chalet label on a vintage piece from another glasshouse of the same era, or vice versa. However, in 15 years of collecting, I have a mere handful of these examples on file.
These two pieces were shown to have incorrect label placements—one (left) confirmed as a Lorraine piece through a newspaper article, and the other (right) identified by Chalet artist Maestro Bruno Panizzon during the 2010 Chalet exhibit. Both were traced to the same seller, with evidence suggesting the labels were deliberately altered to procure a sale.
Chalet label placed on a Lorraine Glass Industries “twisted tips” centerpiece on the left and the generic “Made in Canada” label used on Lorraine Glass Industries placed on the Chalet production piece #2011 at right.
Chalet labels on pieces from Lorraine Glasshouse Industries (left) and EDAG (right).
The myth that “80% of Chalet pieces were etched.”
This misinformation stems from a personal and unverified theory put forward by a single collector who presents it as a verified fact. It is based on a very limited and randomly selected sampling of pieces. However, drawing broad conclusions from such a small and selective group—particularly when examined decades after production—leads to conclusions that are not only difficult to substantiate and cannot be reliably verified as the process is flawed from the outse. Why? There is no original production data available to support or validate such a claim.
In reality, to determine an accurate frequency of etched branding, the indicia of every single piece that was produced at the Chalet factory during the entire length of its operation would have had to been recorded at the actual time of production. Then it would have been possible to accurately determine the number and per- centage of etched pieces, the number and percentage of stickered pieces, the number and percentage of pieces that were given hang tags, the number and per- centage of pieces that were hand-engraved, the number and percentage of pieces that were marked only with distributors/retailers branding and lastly – the number and percentage of pieces that were not marked in any way.
Without original and complete data, a cursory examination of a limited and select sampling decades later and after pieces have gone through many collectors’ and sellers’ hands to determine factory etching frequency is invalid and pointless. Furthermore, it is not possible to even accurately restate this myth as “80% of Chalet pieces that have survived to the present are etched,” as there is no original production data available to support or validate even this claim.
Moreover, this myth also makes inaccurate conclusions as it inherently assumes unmarked pieces are due to the removal of markings such as stickers and hang tags by past owners and does not, in fact, cannot, factor in the frequency of those pieces that left the factory without any markings. This is a fact verified by the Chalet artists who did the molleria and marking of pieces. A related point – many inexperienced collectors believe that if a piece is not etched, it is not Chalet. This is entirely inaccurate as etchings and engravings were not the only brandings Chalet Artistic Glass employed. As stated, not only were some Chalet pieces left unmarked but stickers and hang tags were also used and countless and uncounted numbers of these have been removed by previous owners. Therefore, many pieces of Chalet are now unmarked simply through the passage of time and circumstances. Unmarked Chalet is not any sort of proof of “fake Chalet.”
The myth that a claim of “factory repaired” legitimizes damaged glass.
Not all flaws in hand or mouth blown glass are from damage. Different types of damage: broken and then glued, broken and then filed, scratched and then buffed – breakage and severe wear that happens typically after a piece leaves a factory or studio.
Sellers claiming “factory repaired” are merely trying to justify selling a piece that has no or extremely limited value to the majority of the market. Moreover, in the case of vintage glass – how can they know that a repair was done at the factory? There is no marking or record. There is absolutely no way of knowing when either the damage or repair was done. Such a claim makes a very subjective call based on an individual’s perception of how expertly, or not, the damage was “repaired.”
Damaged pieces have very low value if any value at all. The reality is that damaged glass, no matter where or how expertly repaired, is damaged glass. Exceptions being very rare pieces that are so desirable that the damage is a minor consideration when compared to its scarcity. And this will be subjective to each collector and the piece. However, although retaining some value, its monetary worth will still be much lower than a comparable piece that is not damaged.
In Chalet’s case, we know from artists’ accounts that if a piece was broken during production, it was usually given to a staff member, friend or relative. If the damage was so very slight to be almost unnoticeable, it MIGHT be repaired at the molleria stage (grinding and polishing stage and not done by the artists on the factory floor who blew the piece) if this took just a very few seconds or minutes. The rarity of the piece and the cost of the ingredients used in its production would also be a factor. Time and material translated into money – Chalet was a factory and was bottom line driven. If the damage was severe, it was “sent down the chute.” We have many recollections from Cornwall residents who crawled under this area at the Chalet factory to claim a piece of “treasure.” A very fond and common childhood memory and often done on a dare as Chalet certainly did not encourage the practice!
Here are 2 damaged Chalet pieces with specific repairs (grinding and polishing) that MIGHT have been done at the Chalet factory. As Chalet molleria artist and glassblower, Antonio Tedesco, is deceased, I could not ask him but did show to Chalet artist Roberto De Marchi who confirmed that these were the types of damaged pieces could have been repaired as the damage was very limited and both pieces were not ordinary production forms. Moreover, he confirmed that the quality of each repair was excellent. Both these pieces were purchased at the Morrisburg flea market which is just outside of Cornwall.
Note that the bear at top and bottom left (green avventurina figurine ) has no nose! It took me a minute to realize this and if I did not have other Chalet polar bears (the blue avventurina bearfigurine shown here) of this style, I might not have noticed for a very long time. As seen in the center photo, the damage is smooth and polished. Expertly done.
Note the blunt tip that has been ground and polished. The seller pointed this out to me as I could not believe the $20.00 price he had on this very rare piece. I had not noticed the damage at all as the repair was so unobtrusive.
The myth that the “John Riekes Collection” is named after a glass artist.
Although this line was indeed named in memory of John Riekes, John Riekes was not a glassblower. He was the grandson of one of the founders of Riekes Crisa – a major Chalet distributor in the United States and helped manage the business. John died very young, aged 25, in a 1967 car crash and his family chose to honour him thusly.
A catalogue page from the 1976 Riekes Crisa General Catalogue. See the chapter “Chalet’s Distributors” pages 203-219 for details regarding Riekes Crisa and Chalet
The myth that Chalet “pink and purple” pieces are production colours.
Among the hardest facts for collectors to accept is that the hand-blown pink and purple Chalet pieces were not produced deliberately. Why is this myth adhered to so stubbornly? Because today, "the pink" and "the purple" are among the most prized Chalet pieces for collectors. However, it is a fact, verified by the Chalet artists themselves, that these pieces, although highly sought after now, were deemed inferior glass by the company back then. In actuality, they were considered “seconds” by Chalet. Please refer to the “Chalet Seconds” section (pages 82-99) of the chapter “Chalet Unusual” in “Chalet Crystal Clear Continued” for more examples. Each team of artists could produce up to 70 pieces a day resulting in total daily production of 700-800 items. However, typically 25% of daily production, 175 to 200 pieces, ended up being considered not top quality.
How do I knowthat “pink and purple Chalet” were considered seconds? Quite by chance actually! During one of my interviews in 2010 with Maestri Bruno Panizzon, Giulio Gatto, and Chalet artist Gianfranco Guarnieri for my first book, I mentioned that just before meeting them, I had picked up a "little pink Chalet stretch" from an American who had crossed the border from Massena, New York, to visit her aunt in Cornwall. I was extremely excited about it as it was the first I had ever seen and pink is one of my favorite colours. The artists flatly stated, "Chalet didn’t do pink glass." When I insisted, "Yes, it’s signed," they demanded, "We want to see." So, I went out to my car and brought the glass in for them. Upon seeing it, they chuckled and said, "That’s a cranberry second. It's not pink Chalet." I did not understand what they meant, so they explained, "Pink is a second. We did those when the cranberry wasn’t right, or not enough, or when the glass wasn’t working." Cranberry colouring was too expensive to discard, so it was used up in making end-of-day hand-blown pieces. They were amazed to hear how popular these pieces are now and the prices that “pink Chalet” commands.
The conversation about pink glass then led to a discussion on the “purple Chalet.” Each artist was emphatic that "purple Chalet" was, "Always a mistake. Another second. We didn’t make purple." What does “Always a mistake" mean? The artists elaborated:
Purple Chalet pieces did not result from a colour formula of Maestro Sergio Pagnin. It was not a deliberate colour mix used in production runs. "Purple Chalet" was the end result of cranberry colour that had either been mixed improperly or had undergone unplanned reactions between the gold, lead, and salts with the environment and other materials or contaminants in the mix. At other times, some cranberry pieces were "overcooked," causing the colour to deepen into a purple tone. Again, the Chalet artists were amazed that "purple Chalet" is another highly sought after. I had a collector take great issue with my presenting what the artists told me. Knowing that she did not believe those who made the glass was quite an eye-opener but I tried again - this time showing her the math:
Chalet produced 700-800 pieces a day. They operated for 13 years - sometimes 7 days a week during peak production years. To simplify the numbers, let’s take an average daily production of 750 pieces for 13 years for 50 weeks each year. That is roughly a production history of 487,500 pieces. Now, we have seen maybe 200-300 “purple Chalet” tops. Let’s say 300 to be generous - that works out to 0.06% of production. If purple was a regular production colour, does it make sense that we would see such small numbers? No - certainly not. That is beyond logic given Chalet’s limited production palette of blues, ambers, greens, reds, oranges and cranberry. Therefore, the math even does not even support purple being a production colour! However, unfortunately in the case of this myth, it seems that some prefer to believe personal opinion over logic or first-hand accounts.
I later spoke to Chalet artists Giovanni Voltalina, Roberto De Marchi, and Antonio Tedesco as well about “purple Chalet” and they were in total agreement with what I had been told regarding the “pink and purple Chalet” from Gianfranco, Bruno and Giulio. The continued promotion and adherence to this myth by some collectors is difficult to understand and, frankly, feels dismissive of the facts. It raises the question: why is it so hard for some to accept well-supported information? Even more baffling: why discount the firsthand knowledge of the artists themselves—those who were present on the factory floor every day—and disregard the expertise and experiences of people who were directly involved in the production process? Not to mention the math! This myth is another example of personal theory and opinion over verified facts.
The myth of “rare.”
Although Chalet pieces are inherently “rare” simply by the virtue of existing at least 50 years after being produced, many times this categorization should be viewed only in the framework of why it is being defined. Specifically, in those cases of a piece being described for sale or for determining value. Then, it must be placed in the context of what was historically produced, is presently seen/available in the collecting or resale market and the agreed upon parameters. Those are outline below.
However, many sales posts contain inaccurate information about the rarity of a particular piece as compared to the rarity of others seen . In some cases, these inaccuracies stem from a lack of experience or knowledge—just because a particular shape or colour is unfamiliar or seldom seen doesn’t necessarily mean it’s rare. In other instances, such claims may be made deliberately to justify an inflated price. Regardless of intent, the spread of misinformation can lead to exaggerated values, unrealistic expectations, and widespread misunderstandings within the collecting community. Moreover, rarity does not always guarantee that collectors find a piece desirable or that they feel its rarity justifies a premium. Simply put - some pieces, although rare, are not sought after and therefore, a seller will not be able to charge a high price based only on its rarity. Conversely, some common forms are very eagerly collected and their popularity and value is not hampered by being easily found. A good example of this is the Chalet “crystal twist” vase.
Let us examine the reality of how a collectible’s singularity is accurately determined, described and valued within the agreed upon parameters of the definitions:
common: A piece made frequently and in large quantities. The Chalet crystal twist vase (inventory V 32) is a perfect example of a common piece. It was produced in production runs of significant number throughout Chalet's history. In addition, it had a high survival rate. These factors result in it being found frequently and as being classified as a common piece. However, because of its popularity among collectors, its value is less impacted by its commonality than other forms (e.g. a Chalet “gondola” centerpiece) that are also common production pieces.
A common Chalet “crystal twist.” It is typical in its size, colour and styling to the production norm of this form.
scarce: A piece that deviates from its norm in some way and was produced in fewer numbers and less often. Therefore, there were fewer numbers of this item from the onset. Its fewer numbers and deviation increase its value over compared to a commonly seen form.
The amber “crystal twist” in the background middle is scarce. Although not unique in shape or colour, its oversized height at 17 inches is a deviation from the norm. To date, it is the largest twist vase of which we are aware.
rare: A piece that deviates from the typical in a most significant way. Its size and/or colour is not merely a slight variation of its norm. Rare pieces are produced in much fewer numbers and are much less often seen. Therefore, the monetary value of a rare piece is high if its desirability to collectors is also high.
Two Chalet mini “crystal twists. “They are not production pieces but done at end of day and deviate from the typical in size at 8 inches. The purple is the rarer and more desirable of the pair and with a higher monetary value as it also deviates in its colour from the norm. This increases its value and desirability to collectors.
Both are these pieces are rare. However, one is desired by collectors and therefore its value is high while the other piece does not have a significant monetary value despite its rarity. Why? Both are same colour. Well, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” so in this case desirability is subjective and not based on any production value. Bottom line - the cigar bowl on the left is a rare form but less valued or desired piece. The sailboat is rare with regard to both colour and numbers. Its value and desirability are both high.
one-of-a-kind/unique: A piece that was made only once. It could be an artist’s sample that was not put into production or an unusually styled piece that was made at the end of day and was never duplicated in another size or colour. To be considered one-of-a-kind/unique, a piece must be completely stand alone in numbers made, colour, style, and size. Obviously no “crystal twist” vase can therefore be classified as one-of-kind/unique as its form is common. However, we have seen a few Chalet forms that are, at the time of this writing, unique. I am lucky enough to have one such:
The myths of the Chalet glass “glows.”
Uranium oxide, when suitably prepared, produces colours of great vividness. First used by artisans in pottery glazes and glass. Antique glass that contains uranium is often referred to as “Vaseline Glass”. A nickname given in the 1920’s to pieces that glowed as there was a perceived resemblance to petroleum jelly.
Commercial usage in Canada of uranium was off and on again up to 1968 - supply was determined most often by catastrophic world events. It was widely used before World War 1 and then banned but following World War 2, usage of uranium in civilian productions was again allowed. As a result, during the 1950’s, there was a great boom in uranium mining in Canada - we were and are the greatest producers of uranium in the world. However, due to the health and environmental risks associated with uranium and disposal of its waste, in 1963, the U.S and Great Britain declared a moratorium on widespread uranium use in civilian applications. The risk to the workers was not only through inhalation and ingestion but through dermal contact and injury – something to which glassblowers are prone. Debate in Canada regarding these same issues began in 1967 and ended in 1969 with the same moratorium. France allowed civilian use of uranium until 1980 and, some countries, like China, still allow uranium use in the production of goods such as glassware.
Chalet Artistic Glass was registered with the American government’s Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System because of the company’s use of depleted uranium in its glass – a fact of which the Chalet artists were unaware until the 2010 Chalet exhibit in Cornwall..
Chalet stopped using uranium, along with several other ingredients, with the Canadian government ban. Therefore, we have a way to broadly date when the Chalet pieces containing uranium were produced – 1962-1969. EDAG also produced pieces which contain uranium. Lorraine Glass Industries did not use uranium in its production. We have confirmed evidence of this as the Lorraine colour formulas have recently been shared.
A wide range of Chalet forms contain uranium. Most commonly – several different styles of ashtrays and baskets, ‘long arm’ stretches, “fingertip” platters and vases, “crossed fingers”, 4 “spike” centerpieces, animal figurines and bonboniere. Also found have been a very few aqua “crystal twist” vases. Uranium is most prevalent in orange and red and aqua pieces but as stated, it has also found in a few pieces of cranberry/green, completely clear crystal animal and 2-tone blue/green figurines and a cranberry in clear crystal basket. Examples follow below.
Uranium in art glass can be detected under a UV light which causes the glass to fluoresce (emit visible light) a green glow. Most often these pieces glow with a brilliant “firecracker” green radiance but sometimes occasionally this can be somewhat weaker as pieces with heavy casings contain a very high lead content which will deaden the glow. However, a uranium glow, although weaker in these instances, remains bright green – never a dull green, bluish, yellow, red or orange shining. These other kinds of glows will certainly be found in your Canadian art glass but they are from different elements such as cadmium, manganese or magnesium to name a few. For more examples of Chalet uranium pieces. please reference these articles regarding both the larger and smaller Chalet forms in which we have detected uranium.
A few examples of the Chalet “uranium glow.” As plainly evidenced, this is not an ambiguous glow!
In the majority of “fire” uranium Chalet, pieces have 2 glows. The bright green from uranium but the rimming glow is from magnesium.
A Chalet “non-uranium glow.”
The UV light on this Chalet cigar bowl indicates the presence of manganese. It too glows - but dully and is much denser than the “firecracker” burst of light seen in all the examples above. There is no mistaking the difference between the 2 elements.
More Chalet pieces showing a UV glow - but not a uranium glow. Different colour mixes contained different elements. And as stated above, many elements of these emit a glow under black light.
From the collection of Gionny Gueli.
If you know of another Chalet myth which is adding to the misinformation circle, please leave a comment or contact me as it can very easily be included in this article.
