Topic: Palm trees and vase - Stourbridge?

[Max]

Here are two photographs taken at Gaydon.  The quality isn't brilliant as they're photographs of photographs unfortunately.  These are from a nice chap without internet connection, so he will be informed of any progress via telephone or snail-mail - I wonder if anyone can shed any light on these items?

http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7027  Thanks to Angela for the photo 

http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7052

[Leni]

The palm trees look very similar to a design registered by John Walsh Walsh (RD100004) on May 12th 1888 according to Gulliver.  However, something very similar was produced by Boulton & Mills around the same time.  Anyway I'd say definitely Stourbridge, c1890  

I'd say the white vase with turquoise edged rim was a similar age, and also possibly Stourbridge, but could be any maker. 

HTH 

[josordoni]

Someone is happily reading her Gulliver....

[Leni]

Someone is happily reading her Gulliver....

Sure am!   And on looking again, I think I'd come down in favour of the Walsh Walsh version. 

[Bernard C]

Max — Your three palm trees, the two in the pictures, and the one on the GMB stand at Gayton, are nothing like the five shown in Gulliver and the single late ashtray example shown in Notley/Miller's.

My conclusions are that many glassworks, probably including central European glass houses, made palm trees for sale in the British and British Empire marketplace, and that your three styles are unlikely to be by Walsh or Boulton & Mills.

... and would some kind soul explain the essential characteristic or characteristics of Victorian and Edwardian fancy glass that makes it so immediately identifiable as a product of the Stourbridge group of glassworks.   I am sure that Mervyn Gulliver, Charles Hajdamach, and many others, including myself, would find this skill most useful.

Bernard C. 

[Leni]

OK, I'm sorry.  Clearly reading and looking at the pictures / Registered Designs in Gulliver is not helping me at all, so I'll just shut up and get back in my corner.  Apologies for being so obviously stupid.

[Frank]

I would hardly consider you to be stupid!  But there is a difference in understanding the appearance of a 2D photo and 3D object as well as the effects of lighting...    the differences of printing versus computer viewing of images. :cry: It is all down to experience in the end... our eyes tend to latch on certain characteristics    and until someone points out that those might not be pertinent, or another characteristic is... you can be wallowing in translation confusion. 

It is easier to learn first from objects and then use that experience to interpret what is printed, than to apply information from books to objects. But you do very well in general and we are all allowed mistakes.  :st: I tend to draw quick conclusions too often myself, though I think I am improving  Probably is possibly one of the most useful words.

[Bernard C]

Leni — My apologies.   I could have been rather more delicate in my choice of words.

Like you, I am passionate about Mervyn Gulliver's superb book.   My first and still my dominant reaction to it is that it firmly puts a lot of glass with dubious attributions back into the "Don't know" category, where it belongs.   In terms of the positive attribution of Victorian fancies, Gulliver is just a tiny window on this huge subject.   We need all the surviving pattern books published as per Reynolds, so that the information is available to everyone.   We also need many major collections published, so that we can see frequency distributions.

How long will it take?

Bernard C.