Auction: Pair of FLW stained-glass door panels

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Post Reply

SDR
Posts: 19420
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The seller expects to move these unidentified panels without showing the main figure in close-up ?

S

DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 19420
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Hmm. Generic Wright�or generic Prairie ?

If this design could be identified as belonging to a specific project, we could assume perhaps that the pair of sash were removed from a building and given to said woman (who might herself be researched).

Otherwise, we take the provenance as given, in which case there is not much to go on ?

S

PrairieMod
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: www.prairiemod.com

Post by PrairieMod »

Two words: caveat emptor

DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 19420
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The emptor may not have employed sufficient caveat . . .? :roll:

S

Post Reply