Author Topic: May be Whitefriars ?  (Read 2351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Argonite

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2007, 03:58:21 PM »
Frank !
Please don't leave me this way... :o
Why Richardson's and not Walsh ?
Your response seems a little abrupt to say the least  ::)
Respect,
Roger
Respect,
Roger


Offline tropdevin

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2089
  • Gender: Male
    • Paperweights
    • England
    • My Paperweights Website
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2007, 04:50:43 PM »
Hi All

I find Franks's comment astounding.  As far as I am aware, there is no evidence at all for Richardson using the fake '1848' date canes. Whereas Alfred Noel Arculus is on record as saying he had a Saturday job making paperweight set-ups for Arculus, and putting these fake dates in.  Furthermore, the canes look very like Walsh Walsh / Arculus canes.  So I am 99.9% certain this is not a Richardson piece, but an Arculus / Walsh Walsh one.

Alan
Alan
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."  Abraham Lincoln.

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.
 http://www.pwts.co.uk


Offline Argonite

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2007, 07:27:08 PM »
I am still running with Walsh Walsh folks - so until definately 'proven' otherwise, that's where I'm at.... :P
Thanks for the lively debate everyone, very much appreciated.
Respect, Roger
Respect,
Roger


Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9420
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Gateway
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2007, 08:54:18 PM »
As per Hadjamach:

The bottle is said to match one from early 20th century records and presumed to be from Richardsons.

But I might have got it wrong, reviewing all the images. Hill Ouston continued to sell the Richardsons bottle until 1939
Frank A.
Please help preserve glass web-sites for posterity by donating to The Glass Study Association a non-profit organisation.
Scotland's Glass - Ysart Glass
Glass Zoo - Glass Study.COM
Commercial Czech


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 4582
    • England
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2007, 11:08:20 PM »
It is true that Hajdamach offers evidence for Richardson using false "1848" canes. However, the bottle shown by Hajdamach (page 408, Plate 372) from the Hill Ouston catalogue differs from that shown by Roger. Roger's has a foot rim with a substantial distance to the lower part of the body, but the Hill Ouston one seems to have no foot, even though footed items are well known in pieces attributed to Richardson. The neck rim in Roger's is thinner, wider and less rouinded than that shown in the book. The stopper in the book example is indeed shaped much like those seen in many bottles attributed to Richardson, but Roger's has a stopper that is not as wide as the neck rim.

In fact in Roger's bottle the stopper seems to be leaning over and may not fit too well. It could be useful to see a photo of the canes in the stopper - it is not unkown for stopers and bottles to get mixed up!

In the book, Hajdamach quotes some cane colour details from an original document that helps to suggest a Richardson link. But the colour descriptions such as, "centre white ruby outside, amber white outside ..." could just as easily describe canes from any "old English maker, including some used by Bacchus!!

I agree with Alan that Arculus / Walsh is not an easy separation to make. I see no reason to think that Walsh would not have used existing cane stocks from Arculus when they bought the company, and therefore cane matching can not always lead to the right attribution. I think Roger's bottle could be either.
KevinH


Offline RAY

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 988
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2007, 11:29:27 PM »
if the stopper and the bottle have the same number, it's a match, the grinder's numbered there piece's, as the top's and bottles were always ground for a nice fit, and numbered so not to get them mixed up
cheers Ray


Offline Argonite

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2007, 09:32:12 AM »
KevH: I have posted an image of the bottle+stopper but due to the different lighting conditions this morning the colours appear slightly different !
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5983

The stopper canes are certainly different colours from those in the bottle but both the bottle neck and stopper have been ground to fit and they are very snug ! As Ray suggests, both the stopper and neck have been inscribed with either '16' or '91' (re my gallery image #5893) so I think they are definately made for each other, although the only reference I have seen perports to be from Whitefriars....Hummmmm....I know that early english decanters were 'matched' in this way but usually on the base and not the neck.



I am still swayed toward Walsh and KevH has been particularly eloquent and persuasive toward this end although the item remains 'Unidentified' in my catalogue - but not for much longer I suspect !!!

Viva Debate
Respect,   Roger
Respect,
Roger


Offline tropdevin

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 2089
  • Gender: Male
    • Paperweights
    • England
    • My Paperweights Website
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2007, 01:01:41 PM »
Hi.  It is unusual to find numbered markings on the neck and stopper of Old english bottles - maybe it was only done for export? I have about 15 bottles - Arculus / Walsh Walsh and Richardson, and none are numbered.  Although people tend to associate footed weights with Richardson, they were not the only ones to have a foot rim: there are a few Arculus / Walsh Walsh weights and bottles with rims, and Richardson weights without.....

I have added some pictures of 1848 dates from Arculus / Walsh Walsh pieces: you will see the design and quality varies!

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane4.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane3.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane2.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane1.jpg
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/1848mess.jpg

Alan
Alan
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."  Abraham Lincoln.

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.
 http://www.pwts.co.uk


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 4582
    • England
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2007, 10:26:52 PM »
Quote
I am still swayed toward Walsh and KevH has been particularly eloquent and persuasive toward this end ...
That's kind of you to say so. But I do not feel that I have been persuasive towards a Walsh Walsh attribution. In fact, I said: "I think Roger's bottle could be either." - meaning either Arculus or Walsh Walsh. I am not going with one or the other.
KevinH


Offline Argonite

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: May be Whitefriars ?
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2007, 12:17:50 PM »
 :D
Thanks KevH - I didn't mean to put you on the spot, quite the contrary - meant to say how much I appreciated your input  ;D

I would also like to say a 'Thank You' to all the contributors to this thread and close with
 
Respect,
Roger
Respect,
Roger

 

Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum
Enter
key words
to search
Amazon.com