The Noveltic Effect

For those of you who believe that a YZ blog should focus exclusively on YZs, this post may come as a bit of a shock. The YZ range erupted into a society which was desperately trying to forget the blood-soaked years of World War 1. A society where those who could afford to do so wanted only to party. They wanted frivolity, they wanted to be amused. YZ products were frivolous, they were amusing. They were an expensive, unnecessary luxury. But they were far from being the only game in town. In the 1920s and 1930s YZ-type novelties abounded. Who made them we’ll almost certainly never know but, to judge from the number which continue to appear in antique shops, charity shops, secondhand shops, boot sales and antique fairs, they were clearly made and sold in large numbers and by a number of different manufacturers. Most were amusing and fun, though few were quality items.

                (These bookends are strangers to the concept of right angles)

For many years I have bemoaned the fact that non-YZs were almost completely overlooked as collectable items. While YZs were being snatched up for, often, hundreds of pounds, their non-YZ cousins persuaded few people to part with their money and, if they did, it was done grudgingly and sparingly. A sort of booby prize for those who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, pay the inflated prices YZs commanded.

Recently though things appear to have changed. Here are some of the recent prices realised on ebay for non-YZ pieces:

£311.99 (99p???) and £550 would be very good prices for YZs; for non-YZs it’s bizarre. I can only assume that the presence of Faturan in those two pieces led to the excessive prices realised. (For an in-depth analysis of Faturan see ‘An investigation into a mythical material’ by Ian Holdsworth and Ibrahim Faraj.)

I can almost understand why the bookends fetched £75 – they’re very YZ-like in concept – but those for £120 simply don’t compute. Did the buyer believe them to be YZ?

Now to the two Noveltic pieces. In August 2012 I wrote on this blog:

‘Take the Noveltic range as an example, though ‘range’ is a rather charitable description – there seems to be only one design, the only variation being the very occasional use of bamboo rather than an oak bar for the match holder and striker.  Variety apart though, Noveltic birds show a good degree of craftsmanship (note the way the beak feathers - no pun intended - gently into the head rather than being merely a stuck on accessory) and they have a humour and a personality all their own (wonderfully doleful eyes that seem to plead with you to take them home).So what are they worth?  I would argue, considerably more than they currently sell for.  At the time of writing, on eBay, there are three on offer.  At £9.99 (no bids), £19.99 (no bids) and at £29.99 (Buy It Now – apparently no interest).’

Last December a Noveltic bird, owned by a Seattle resident, in the US, sold for about £90. If the buyer lived outside America there was also an International Shipping charge of about £50. So a possible purchase price of £140 for a Noveltic bird. £90 or £140, it’s a lot of money for Noveltic. This February a Noveltic bird, not in excellent condition, sold for £50.

Has the tide turned? Are non-YZs now considered collectable in the UK? I hope so – they deserve to be. I’m told that non-YZs have, for some time, been collected in America, where they are apparently known as ‘knock-offs’. Not all knock-offs are cheaply and poorly made. Some rival YZ in the quality of craftsmanship and in the richness of the materials used in their construction.

I end with an image of a really beautiful example. I’ve no information about its origin though it looks to me to be French.

 

Wood That It Were YZ

Something occurred to me the other day - something of which I've been aware for very many years but which I've never consciously considered as a way to assess YZness. Potential YZ buyers may find it useful, particularly those with little or no experience of examining the pieces.

 

If a YZ ashtray has the tray made of oak, it's very, very, very, very unlikely to be YZ. That also tends to apply to all other YZ pieces (but omit 'very,very,very').

 

That shouldn't be too surprising. YZ sales were built on four things: the humour and functionality of their design, the novelty and attractiveness of the recently developed brightly coloured resins, the perfect craftsmanship of their  construction - and the exotic quality of the materials used. Oak simply wasn't considered exotic enough.

 The eyes have it! The eyes have it!

I was looking through the ‘Is it YZ? Or isn’t it?’ article on the website a couple of days ago and realised that the section on eyes could use a bit of clarification if it’s to be of use to a newcomer thinking of buying into the world of YZ. It lacks the way to recognise a painted eye (as used in most non-YZ pieces).So here are images the two types.

The iris colour of YZ eyes is provided by a layer of coloured glass beneath the black glass of the pupil. Since coloured glass doesn’t discolour, those eyes remain bright and vibrant today, nearly a century after their manufacture.

 Non-YZ eyes though have a painted iris. Over time, that paint tends to degrade, becoming faded and blotchy.

The difference between the two is usually fairly obvious. If the eyes are painted, the piece isn’t YZ, no matter what the seller may tell you.

Know Your YZs

I put a new page on the website a couple of days ago, entitled ‘YZ Buyers Beware’, concerning a worrying trend on ebay. I’ve long been angered by incorrect auction headings and descriptions of YZ pieces on ebay, as well as non-YZ  pieces being indicated as possibly being YZ. (See the post from April, 2013 as well as ‘Is SomebodyTrying To Con You?’ on the website.) But ebay sellers are now further pushing the boundaries by asserting that pieces which are clearly non-YZ – and often pretty poor examples of them – are definitely YZ. That assertion is usually accompanied by a sprinkling of words to (hopefully) bolster that assertion – e.g. ‘Henry Howell’, ‘Dunhill’ and ‘Faturan’. 

There’s a page on the website – ‘Is it? Or isn’t it?’ – which should help inexperienced buyers to identify genuine YZ pieces but I’m always happy to help. Just email me the ebay item number, using the contact form here. 

That said, don’t be deterred from buying non-YZ if you like the piece – some are exceedingly well-crafted, sometimes matching YZ’s workmanship. I have a large non-YZ collection, none of which I bought thinking them to be YZ and all of which I thoroughly enjoy having around.

A Little Knowledge Is A Misleading Thing

For a long time now, I have been mildly irritated by the misleading information frequently used to describe YZ-type items on, particularly, eBay, but also on the websites of supposedly reputable dealers.  I use ‘YZ-type’ to mean items made of similar materials and in a similar style to those made by Henry Howell & Co. Ltd., not to indicate the quality.  I am now moving from mild irritation into a state of barely suppressed anger. 

At present, YZ products command an impressive monetary premium over their non-YZ counterparts and that seems to influence the sales descriptions to a point where they occasionally border on the fraudulent.

Here are some recent descriptions which are, at best, exceedingly wishful thinking:

"The bookends have no maker's mark, but were probably made by Henry Howell & Co. who made all sorts of items with mounted Nut Birds including ashtray, smoker's companions, and bookends. A lot of these items were commissioned by Alfred Dunhill to sell in their retail outlets."

Terrific!  That's like selling a painting with the information that 'The painting is not signed but it was probably painted by Rembrandt who did a lot of paintings'.
No, they are not probably made by Henry Howell & Co!  They are not even possibly made by Henry Howell & Co!  They have as much in common with HH products as my dog does - somewhat less in fact, since my dog lives surrounded by genuine YZ products.
And dragging in Alfred Dunhill to, presumably, provide some spurious justification for the claim merely adds to the impression of sharp practice.  Incidentally, that piece of 'information' is not even correct - Alfred Dunhill did not commission YZ products from HH, Dunhill acted merely as a convenient temporary (1925 to 1927 only) retail outlet for the company in order to test out, promote and establish the YZ brand.

Pig-ignorance is not a sin so why not simply say, 'I haven't a clue what YZ products look like and, since it is unmarked, I leave it to the prospective buyer to decide if this item is in fact YZ, made by Henry Howell & Co and possibly retailed by Alfred Dunhill'.

That ticks all the right search boxes - YZ, Henry Howell and Dunhill - so it'll still attract the attention of YZ-hunters.

"We offer this delightful Art Deco Dunhill Nutbird ashtray made by YZ and dating from the 1930’s. While these pieces are often marked to the base this example has an original brown velvet pad attached. Made by YZ for Dunhill although no apparent makers marks as shown but possibly under the velvet"

This surely contravenes Trade Description regulations.  Of course it isn't YZ and of course it was never made for Dunhill.  The date's right though - although it's just as likely to be from the later 1920s as the 1930s.  Good move not to check under the velvet - no point having to admit that there is definitely no maker's mark.

"DUNHILL YZ BIRD MADE BY HENRY HOWELL1930s 40s.VERY RARE ASHTRAY."

 Wrong!!  Not Dunhill, not YZ, not Henry Howell, not very rare and a very neat trick if it's 40s - HH went out of business in 1936.  Great idea though to make the image so small and so out of focus that it's difficult to see exactly what you're being conned into buying.

And, finally, how to do it (almost) right:

"Henry Howell made these for Dunhill and they are sometimes marked, this one is not but is of excellent quality, I cannot say for sure it is one of Howells."

Assuming that 'Henry Howell made these for Dunhill' is intended to mean 'Henry Howell made birds in this style which were sold by Dunhill', then this description's fair enough.  No, it isn't one of Howell's.  It's Noveltic and yes it is of excellent quality.  I suspect that the Noveltic mark is actually there, maybe just well-worn - I've never come across an unmarked one - but maybe not.

What's It Worth?

£100?  £150?  £200? More?  For a wood, nut and plastic trinket?  Are the prices currently being achieved for YZ novelties really realistic?  Given that the worth of any article is the price people are willing to pay for it, I guess that, by definition, they must be.  OK, realistic then, but can those prices really be justified?  In my view, yes.  And no.

Yes, because each one is unique.  Each YZ item was based on an original design drawing but, partly due to the different forms and markings of the natural materials used, in part because each YZ craftsman had his own idea of how best to project the humour of the design concept, each is a unique work of art in its own right.

 Yes(ish), because most are now over 80 years old.  Any item that fragile, and particularly those condemned to the potentially damaging environment of lighted matches and smouldering cigarettes, should surely command a price premium on survival grounds alone.

Definitely yes because the craftsmanship of most of the YZ range is astounding.  The love, the care and the quality shine through.  Can a value be placed on the feeling of sheer joy which comes from holding something so perfectly crafted?  Or on an 80 year old object constructed with such humour that it still has the ability to make you laugh out loud?  (Well, me anyway – and I doubt I’m the only one.)

So why the ‘and no’?  It’s a qualified ‘no’ and it relates not to the value of YZ but to the way that many of the non-YZ products seem to be so undervalued by comparison.  Take the Noveltic range as an example, though ‘range’ is a rather charitable description – there seems to be only one design, the only variation being the very occasional use of bamboo rather than an oak bar for the match holder and striker.  Variety apart though, Noveltic birds show a good degree of craftsmanship (note the way the beak feathers - no pun intended - gently into the head rather than being merely a stuck on accessory) and they have a humour and a personality all their own (wonderfully doleful eyes that seem to plead with you to take them home).

So what are they worth?  I would argue, considerably more than they currently sell for.  At the time of writing, on eBay, there are three on offer.  At £9.99 (no bids), £19.99 (no bids) and at £29.99 (Buy It Now – apparently no interest).  Leaving aside the surprising fact that there are people in the country who think that there may still be somebody out there gullible enough to fall for the 99p ploy, those prices are a joke.  A quality piece of Britain’s frivolous 1920s/1930s history for under thirty quid?  Come on!

 I collect YZ novelties.  I’ve been collecting them for 30 years – initially when nobody, including me, knew anything about YZ or even of the existence of Henry Howell & Co.  I bought them because they amused me, I began to research their history because I wanted to get closer to the men who had put so much of their own personalities into their work.  And I bought non-YZ items (not only Noveltic) for the same reason – though every research avenue I’ve tried in an attempt to discover some history has dead-ended.

 yzbirds.com is a site devoted primarily to YZ but I’ll be happy to set up a comprehensive non-YZ section as a sub-site if there’s enough interest out there.  Let me know.  And if anybody has any information relating to the origins of that non-YZ population, please get in touch.