No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author Topic: Turquoise uranium footed bowl. Stuart?  (Read 2240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hotglass

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Turquoise uranium footed bowl. Stuart?
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2007, 01:08:58 PM »
I'm glad to see that rescuing this topic from page 2 has sparked some interest.
If there is uranium in it, that would indicate earlier production than I thought, probably pre WWII. I see that the Stuart Stratford line was in production from the 1930's right up to the 70's. Re-tooling of the molds during that time could produce some variation.
I have seen and have items with very faint and/or partial acid marks of various makers and heard of many more instances where an acid stamp should be present but cannot be found. They are often very difficult to find. For example, I have owned several pieces of well used Waterford where finding the stamp, even with loop or magnifier, takes a good 20 minutes or more, even when I have found it previously so I know it's there and roughly where. Base wear can easily obsure it. Ed.

Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9478
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Europe
    • Gateway
Re: Turquoise uranium footed bowl. Stuart?
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2007, 01:20:40 PM »
Many confuse acid marks with sandblasting which has virtually replaced acid marking as it is much cheaper. This will, in turn be giving way to inkjet printed markings which are currently used in the container industry and bound to cross over to other glassware soon if not already.

Acid marks are smoothly textured and can be continuous designs using a stamp but a stencil could be used. Sandblasted is always stencilled, a quick but not certain give away, but under a glass you will see coarse indents in the surface of the glass. Too early to give guidance on inkjet marks as the technology is developing fast now - but could be etchant, enamels or more likely chemically-bonding epoxy inks that could potentially get confused with acid marks.

Stuart were using sandblasting for signatures for quite a while, often they are very lightly marked and sometimes completely missing. I get the impression they rushed the marking.

Edinburgh Crystal sandblast marks by comparison are invariably more heavily applied. But they certainly left some pieces unmarked, I am told, as a quality issue. But, some of imported EC glass with marks does exhibit poor quality.

Offline Chris Harrison

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: Turquoise uranium footed bowl. Stuart?
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2007, 04:43:38 PM »
According to Andy McConnell's book, the earliest items in the Stratford range date from 1921.

I have a Stratford vase that is marked Stuart.

The vase is badly stained and very worn, and the mark is barely visible.  Looking at it under a strong magnifier, it seems very smooth and "milky" and doesn't have sharp edges.  I'm pretty sure that it's acid etched.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Look for glass on
Visit the Glass Encyclopedia
link to glass encyclopedia
Look for glass on (us)
Visit the Online Glass Museum
link to glass museum

This website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand