Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass

Vaseline/Pearline bon-bon dish in EPNS cradle

(1/3) > >>

David E:

Can anyone help with an ID of this vaseline/pearline bon-bon dish?

:: Click thumbnails to enlarge ::

: : :

The dish itself measures 5-1/8" in diameter and is mounted in an elegant EPNS cradle. The base (shown in photo 3) has a polished concave pontil.

My first thought was c.1900 given the Nouveau appearance, but I'm wondering whether this is later, perhaps c.1920? It doesn't "feel" like Davidson, so perhaps Sowerby or Jobling? And the ground, polished pontil seems to indicate a later manufacture. Not Burtles Tate, is it?

Having poked around a little further I did find reference to a 'Lemonescent' dish by [Thomas?] Webb that looks similar but without the cradle. Webb also ground and polished the pontil away on later pieces, but there's no acid-stamp that I'd expect to see. - towards the bottom of the page. Can anyone concur?

Thanks in advance.

Thought a direct link to the photo of the Webb glass on would help...

I am glad our club website is being used!  LEMONESCENT is the word that Thomas Webb used for a specific color combination, which included the red or orange top, with opalescent highlights and a uranium base.  This has none of the red or orange in it, so it is not LEMONESCENT.  Several factories made this kind of work, and as factory workers went from factory to factory (depending on work available, better pay, etc.), it could have come from any of the factories that made blown glass in the Stourbridge Region in England.  I don't think it is Davidson, Sowerby, Greener or Burtles, Tate.  More likely Richardson or Webb or a company in competition with them.  1900 sounds about right, give or take 10 years.

Dave Peterson

David E:
Great, thanks Dave  :D

Hope you didn't mind me using a direct link to the thumbnail as it was easier to compare the two. I realise mine hasn't got the lemonescent colouring, but thought the style and shape were very similar.

Did Richardson have ground/polished concave pontils at that time - I'm only aware of Webb having this, but my knowledge is limited.

Website now bookmarked!

I have no direct proof whether or not Richardson ground all pontils, or did not grind any.  However, it has been my experience that if there was a pontil (in a blown piece, of course), that the high-end art glass companies were more apt to grind than not to grind.  I have always considered Richardson and Webb to be of that group.  

No problems on the use of the photo.  If you click on any of the small photos on the webpage, it brings up a full size photo in most of the pics on the website.  just an FYI.


David E:
I'd also got the impression that any maker taking the time to finish the glass so neatly must have had concerns over the finished product.

I did notice the clickable link, but felt the thumbnail was good enough for comparisons. If you need any advice on the web site, just ask  :)


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version