You never identified the glasses you recommended, Fastfwd--
They're beauties.
I agree with your line of thinking, up to a point-- what's seven bucks if it's the difference between mediocre & fine? Insignificant if it's a one-time expense, not so insignificant if it's a regularly reoccurring expense. My income's finite, the additional $168 spent on yearly glassware replacement then wouldn't be available for the other things that are of value to me. (Recalibration of bionic arm hydraulics ain't cheap in this town.)
It's not even strictly a matter of money, at this point. I've owned sets of beautiful Scandinavian handmade glassware that I'm not sure I'd replace were offered to me for free-- to use it is to inevitably break it, it pains me even more if exceptionally-good things are destroyed. (Worse still is owning things you're hesitant to actually use.)
Good design is more than just what's aesthetically pleasing-- good design should be sensible.
Interesting
discussion. Perhaps Olive was using the word "classic" to denote an object which (for better or worse) has been made without change for decades or centuries -- like (for instance) certain Thonet bentwood chairs ? It is hard to see the glasses she uses as "design objects" in the sense usually meant on the forum (ie, modernist icons), leaving other qualities -- nostalgia perhaps, as well as the desirable properties of functionality and durability -- to recommend them ? Nothing wrong with that !
I like a plain broad cylinder, without too much contrast in thickness between base and wall -- when I can find them. And as a lifelong cheapskate, I find even $5 to be a luxury for such a utilitarian item. Fine dining is not the norm in my life. . .
Oh, Olive...
Don't be hurt.
When I wrote, "There's nothing wrong with jelly-jar glasses," and "If you really like the jelly-jar look, great," I meant it. Really.
... and P.S., if you don't want to hear my opinion, don't ask for it; I only posted that thoughtful exposition of my feelings because you requested it.
WHC
The glasses are Riedel, designed in 2005 by (I assume) Maximilian Josef Riedel.
I understand the point you make about the pain of accidentally destroying a fine object. Fortunately, these particular glasses -- as thin-walled and delicate-looking as they are -- are surprisingly durable. They're our everyday glasses, and my wife, who has a history of breaking other objects (usually because her hands are too small to grip them securely), LOVES them.
She's knocked them over on marble, dropped them on tile, and smacked them against each other in the dishwasher. I've hit them pretty hard, too, and we entrust them to drunken party guests all the time... But over the last five years we've only broken one each.
So maybe they're both aesthetically pleasing AND sensible enough for you and your husband.
SDR
In my experience, self-described "cheapskates" are rarely cheap. Rather, what they want is just different from what other people spend their money on.
Hmm... I was about to write, "Nothing wrong with that," but it's ludicrous to think that there ever COULD be anything wrong with it. Like I said before, vive la difference.
And as long as I'm monopolizing this thread...
... a couple more thoughts for Olive:
1. "Maybe it reminds you of the glasses you used as a child" wasn't meant to mean "they're childish". When I was a kid, we ate with minimalist Scandinavian flatware nearly as severe as Michelsen/Jensen's AJ pattern. When I visit my mom now and eat with it, I'm definitely reminded of my childhood, but no one would EVER characterize that pattern as childish.
2. "Utilitarian" means something like "designed for usefulness rather than beauty", but that's not so terrible; in fact, orange juice never tastes better to me than when I drink it out of the actual jelly jars in which they serve juice and water at my favorite breakfast restaurant in the entire world:
You misunderstand, Fastfwd...
I am not personally offended but rather feeling a bit put off but what came across, to me, as a massive dose of design snobbery. I think, maybe, we're just on different wavelengths with this one. I liked SDR's explanation, that seemed to hit it.
I, personally don't think drinking glasses are something that I need 'designed'. I want a good form that is easy to grip, a sturdy 'glass assassin' surviving structure and a price that means breakage is no worry. The glasses I have hit all three of these points and in a manner, I personally, find pleasing. They have served me well for two decades. This particular style of glass has been serving people tirelessly for a lot longer. To me, that earns them a 'classic' rating. A format that has survived unchanged because it performs its function beautifully. I label that good design.
So, I'm with W-H-C on this one...
"Good design is more than just what's aesthetically pleasing--good design should be sensible."
And the glasses you use may be lovely, and for you they may survive, but in my house many many Reidel glasses went in the trash until I finally gave up on them. So, I use what is sensible for me and what I enjoy using. I do indeed take pleasure in simple utilitarian objects. We drink wine out of the short version of these glasses often. The French do so why shouldn't I?
This has been a very...
This has been a very informative and interesting discussion, fastfwd, Olive, et al. I've enjoyed thinking about many of the things said, enjoyed the photos of the glassware, and especially the breakfast photos. That doesn't look like Village Inn.
Reminds me I ate cheerios this morning, in a plastic rice bowl, with a soup spoon.
If you want bouncing glasses
I would suggest Kaj Franck's Kartio series, designed in 1958 for iittala. There is something about their soft lines and simple, sturdy, utilitarian shape that I find very appealing. I love the colors too. And they are virtually indestructible. I think the large tumblers sell for about $10-11 each.
http://www.iittala.com/web/Iittalaweb.nsf/en/products_drinking_everyday_...
My last heartbreak involved a set of these Bodum double-walled glasses
Beautiful and thin as light bulbs, talk about a celebration of the material's qualities! Drinking a glass of milk was practically a religious experience, when we used these.
A short-lived celebration, though; even dropping an ice cube into them from a couple of inches above proved fatal. All twelve... now kaput.
A great design, so long as you never dare use 'em.
I have some of these
The Pavina version. Short and fat with an almost hemispherical interior. I use them for cognac or whiskey. You're right they are lovely to drink from. Using better quality glassware is great for certain 'high end' drinking experiences! The husband is rarely allowed to touch them....and only when sober!
Gustaf...I like those! And the price is almost sane!
Review of glasses
mmm, you can't overlook ikea if you want inexpensive, yet modern lined glasses. IKEA 365+ IVRIG should be about okay pricewise - and they are thinlined just as the Riedel glasses. With that price it would not be too much of a setback to have a 12 piece set and some occasional breakage. And they aren't irreplaceable antiques, so you don't need to feel guilty if one comes tumbling down :o)
Or, alternatively, you could buy Duralex glasses as suggested earlier: they are virtually indestructible.
Actually thinking about the glasses I own & use, there is indeed a big difference in how easily they break:
1. Duralex glasses => Breakage: none.
I have had these for several years, use them almost daily, and i had none going to pieces just yet. I have some with a horizontal line (can't find them anywhere anymore)
2. Iittala Ote glasses => Breakage: one so far.
Visually I love them better than the Duralex ones, but they are a little more expensive (about 9 euro for a glass), and not as sturdy. I have had one break so far (no idea how I did that). I haven't had them long at this point (less than 1 yr), and I use them regularly. Still much much more durable than:
3. Double walled (Bodum) glasses => Breakage: + Half of the set smashed so far.
Wonderful to use, but very delicate. Extremely easily to break. I started with 7 (don't ask), after a couple of years a mere 3 left. And I don't even use them daily at all. But lovely to use, these glasses. Did I mention lovely to use ?
So I use the non-breakables daily & save the gorgeous glasses (such as Bodum) for in betweens with low estimated accident situations ;o) = such as when you are fixing a snack for yourself and have time to enjoy it, without nay hurry. Yup, it's a compromise, and it works for me :o)
So guess you have to decide what you prefer.
Pictures
a) Ikea
b) Duralex
c) Iittala Ote
I might be wrong
... but it seems to me like you should be able to find a lot of very handsome glassware in the secondary market for a fraction of what you'd pay for new. We have.
We frequently see nice glassware at estate sales, auctions, thrift stores (less frequently these days) and I'd think that in ten minutes on eBay you could find several options if you are not able to attend estate sales or auctions.
We have sets of glasses that we use regularly and some are just for special occasions. We regularly use a set of mold made Wirkkala style glasses (they may be the same as you've had, but I don't think we have broken any yet. Ours are pretty sturdy). We have sets of Russel Wright and my favorite is the Per Lutken designs by Holmgaard (but we only get those out when we have company). We have a cool set of Hazel Atlas glasses with fun kid's imagery (space kids, pirates, cowboys and cowgirls...) that our 6 year old uses and remarkably, he's yet to break one. He also uses the Heller stacking mugs that match his dish set.
If you don't have to have glasses with a pedigree, it seems like there are a lot of very good looking designs that are reasonably well made and if you buy them inexpensively enough when some do break, your heart won't do the same.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com