Topic: Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...

[Glassyone]

I decided that this was probably so after reading George Manley's book some time ago. Now I have discovered all the experts here it would be good to see if I was right or not!
I have a blue jug very similar to the green too and a large heavy green vase.

http://tinypic.com/a3fvj4.jpg

http://tinypic.com/a3ggg2.jpg

 Ruth.
   :?:

[Anonymous]

Hi Ruth

They do have quite similar characteristics to Nazeing, which if you hadn't said Clutha then Nazeing is what I would have said they are........ although I'm not the one to ask about that. Nigel Benson I believe is the guy you need.
Any chance of photographs of the bases please

Regards  


Gareth

[Connie]

In my limited experience, the colors do not look like Steuben Cluthra if that is the style to which you refer.

Edited to add:   :oops:  Now I am up tp speed.  It is soooooooo confusing to have American and Scottish glass which is somewhat simliar in technique and name.

Frank has a good example of Clutha, Nazeing and Cluthra here -

http://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/NotYsart.htm

[Glassyone]

'Clutha' is Scottish glass, made by James Couper and sons'
 In Cyril Manley's book, example 240 looks to me very similar in every way to this small blue jug.

http://tinypic.com/a4lx0o.jpg
 
[which I do not like as much as mine because of shape and handle]
and the blue looks [ sort of ] similar glass to the small green ones.

I believed that for reasons now forgotten that this type of glass was named 'Clutha' after the river and the bubbles and pattern are supposed to be evocative of water but whatever, Cyril Manley says " I believe that there are only two reasons that it is bought at all" ---because Queen Victoria admired it when she visited the factory and and because the firm employed two first class glass designers---Christopher Dresser and George Walton.
And

"signed pieces are almost impossible to find"

Now he descibes the jug 240 as ' unusual' but sold to him as blue '' Clutha,  long before any interest was shown  in this type of glass ware".

Here are  the pics of the bases--
blue

http://tinypic.com/a4moow.jpg

Green

http://tinypic.com/a4ms82.jpg

I have a large heavy green similar glass vase which is similar in some ways  but not quite and  the base is different.
 
That would complicate things too much.

 On a more personal note---

I spent 25 years buying glass from car boot sales and fairs because glass appealed to me.

 Stuff it, lets be honest,  it spoke to me. Glass is just wonderful and very affordable but can be enigmatic  and hard to identify.

It is more difficult,  if you are/have  collected/[ing] because you see something there that you find a connection with, without discrimination, in terms of provenance, rather than collecting xy or z.

This forum is just quite, well, perfect. There is a great balance between  those of us fairly ignorant and experts and such generosity and tact that        
well, how do you celebrate this ??

Ruth, not synchophantic,[ no wish to have people vomit!]

[nigel benson]

Hi Ruth,

Just back from the Perth Conference - which was great!

The clue to the origin of No.240 in the Manley book is in your qoute "I was sold this as .......", which of course does not make it a piece of Clutha - only a wish/thought by the original seller.

Indeed it is a mis-attribution and is NOT Clutha.

As an aside I was lucky enough to handle this actual blue piece, on the stand of the person re-selling it after the Cyril Manley sale, back in 1986. Nothing about it supported the supposition that it was Clutha, and nobody who understood anything about Clutha at the time agreed with the attribution.

From memory, neither did it necessarily support the idea of Nazeing being the company of origin. I have discussed my views about pieces like this elsewhere on these postings on a number of occasions.

Not very satisfactory for you, Ruth, I'm afraid, sorry.

Kind regards, Nigel

[Anonymous]

Good evening Nigel

The jug that Ruth has on her first posting and the Manley one are in some respects quite different.
The colour in particular of her 3 pieces, and I have not seen any blue Nazeing, is sufficient in itself to maybe consider these are possibly Nazeing whereas the blue one I understand regarding your reservations to attribution.
Do you have an opinion with regards to a "leaning towards" for Ruths 3 items or is that something you consider too speculative and therefore prefer not to comment on. Perhaps that was the conclusion in your final comment and I have simply not taken it on board.


Regards


Gareth


Morgan48

[nigel benson]

Hello again,

Fair comment Gareth. I've re-read my entry and my comments that were meant to include both the blue piece in Manley and Ruth's green pieces is ambiguous. Sorry :oops:

Elsewhere I have discussed the fact that I personally am suspicious of the attributution of pieces like the green ones as Nazeing. As yet there is no positive archival evidence and the shapes are generally not consistant with known Nazeing, nor is the finishing. Furthermore doubt was thrown on such pieces by the only remaining glass blower of Nazeing's from the art glass era, prior to the exhibition. Therefore I would rather be circumspect regarding the attribution, however I quite understand why many people are using the name for pieces such as this.

I hope that this corrects my error in the earlier posting, Nigel

[Glassyone]

Well, it is not Clutha , that is a good start and helpful.

Connie, I looked at Frank's lovely site and it helped affirm my attribution of some other vases, which are cellophane and chrysoprase but in terms of Nazeing the problem is I don't know anything about Nazeing shapes etc and just looking at pictures of the glass itself, it looks similar, for example to cloudy glass.

With respect to the aformentioned types, the glass itself is so distinctive that other strategies for identification such as shape, base etc seem redundant.
In other word  the glass 'reveals itself' easily.

Here is a picture of the larger vase, which is 20 cm or so in height and a purple one.

If we can find something I have which is Nazeing, then I can eyeball it, feel it and compare with the others.  


http://tinypic.com/ac3jf9.jpg
  http://tinypic.com/ac3pjc.jpg




http://tinypic.com/ac4aye.jpg
http://tinypic.com/ac4dpt.jpg

[nigel benson]

Hello Ruth,

The green vase is post-war Nazeing. It should be about 8 1/2 inches high and is pattern No. 52/4. Since the colouring is not the same as the pre-war green(s) the pre-war name for the colour does not apply.

The mauve/purple vase is a pre-war "Tumbler Vase" (Nazeing's name) and was made in various sizes, 6", 7", 8", 10", 12" and 14" and the colour is known as 'Mulberry'.

You can see that although the colour is laid in the same way in both, the weights of the two pieces should differ pro rata to size. That is to say the post-war piece should have a greater weight to size ratio, since it has a thicker casing.

Each has a different finish to the pontil, which is synonimous with their respective periods - pre and post war. The post-war piece can also have a ground rim i.e. there are two versions of the same vase.

Both the green ad Mulberry vases are totally attributable as being from the Nazeing factory, whereas the green pieces that you have shown earlier in this thread are neither documentable through the known catalogues, nor the pieces that I have been able to attribute unequivicably during my collecting over the last 25 years. Many of these pieces were on show at the exhibition in 2003, but I have unearthed a number since then - as is the way of things.

One has to be very careful about giving an attribution on stylistic grounds alone, since it is known that other factories made glass in a similar way. For instance why not attribute it to Gray-Stan , which has identical construction and finish to pre-war Nazeing and is often not marked with the Gray-Stan inscription? There are other, more obscure producers from that period and later as well. Hence my retiscence to give these type of pieces a Nazeing attribution.

Kind regards, Nigel

[Glassyone]

A VERY big thankyou Nigel, that is a tutorial and a half and has given me a good start with Nazeing.

There isn't an emoticon for big hug so     :D

Ruth.