Author Topic: Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...  (Read 4711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline roget123

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2005, 06:14:15 PM »
I am surprised at Nigel's reply to Ruth,
Quote
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.
.  

I have checked the photos taken at our exhibition in Hoddesdon and as I thought, we displayed two jugs, one virtually (as far as hand made objects can be) the same as Ruth's green one and the other was similar in shape but had more straighter contours to the body.  Both of these were NOT from my collection and they were attributed  without any doubt as Nazeing.

So Nigel, have you come across any new information since then that makes you change your mind?

I note that you refer to  
Quote
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
.

As you know I have also met this guy and have had talks with him, unfortunately I found that his memory did not serve as well as other members of Nazeing's staff from the same period. Your man has even dismissed items that were shown in the catalogue from the 1930's - because we need to remember that he started work at Nazeing as a young boy just after WWII i.e. about 1947. Being on the factory floor He probably did not see any of the pre-war stock of art glass held by Nazeing which the war conditions prevented any sales of coloured glass, but would have seen the art glass production that was eventually started in the late 1940's and 1950's.  So unlike you I tend to view his utterings with caution.

The shape of Ruth's green jug is virually the same as jug pattern 1000/10 from the "Water Lilly" suite but it is not from that suite as the colouring and finish are wrong. However as Nazeing were making that shape and from what is known about the trading habits of Nazeing's major Art Glass dealer, H. Elwell, it is possible that he ordrerd art glass jugs in that shape, and Nazeing would have been happy to oblige.

I look forward to reading about any new attributive evidence you may have about Nazeing and their products

Geoff Timberlake,
Nazeing researcher and author of "75 years of diverse Glass-making to the World" - the book about Nazeing glass
Geoff Timberlake
Glass Anorak !!!


Offline nigel benson

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
  • Gender: Male
  • British glass 1870-1980
    • British glass 1870-1980
    • http://www.20thcentury-glass.org.uk
Is this Clutha Glass?
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2005, 01:38:21 PM »
Hmm, let me see, what has Geoff said?

Apparently, he is in disagreement with my opinion about Ruth's jug. That is perfectly OK. After all, I have been at pains to make it clear that it is only my opinion. Yet there are also a number of claims about Nazeing glass, and about the ex-glass blower from Nazeing.

For those who might be interested, below I discuss Geoff’s posting. I should get yourself a favourite drink and a comfy seat before you start  :shock:  :)

When I approached the glass blower who Geoff mentions I knew full well that he had only been employed by Nazeing after the war, since I had been told that by both Geoff and Stephen Pollock-Hill.

Therefore, I took no known and attributable 1930’s Nazeing glass with me. I repeat no known 1930’s Nazeing glass. After all, why bother, since he was only young when he began employment at Nazeing and was therefore extremely unlikely to have any knowledge of the pre-war production.

What I did do was take approximately sixteen pieces of the glass that had a question mark about them, in my opinion. Within these I randomly placed three known and attributable pieces of post-war production – as now illustrated in Geoff’s book. The ex-blower not only identified each piece of known Nazeing immediately when they appeared, he also gave reasons why each of the suspect pieces were, in his opinion, NOT Nazeing. These reasons ranged from a number of technical ones, including a discussion about the enamels used, through to the construction of various pieces and the colour of the metals used in the various pieces. He also stated categorically that the pieces with broken pontils were NOT Nazeing.

On return from this meeting I discussed what was said with Geoff. We both agreed that a blower might not necessarily know how a piece would leave the factory. We should therefore discount the broken pontil ‘theory’ – especially since Geoff had been told that Elwell’s had accepted unfinished pieces by other sources. Indeed they made a virtue of them, because it made the pieces look older than they actually were. It is quite possible that the ex-blower was making assumptions that all pieces had their broken pontil polished over.

I found the gentlemen both lucid and helpful; maybe you discounted his opinion because you took the wrong things with you Geoff? Maybe it was purely a matter of rapour? Who knows?  I can report, from notes I made at the time, your surprise at the success of my visit and that you had discounted this gentleman somewhat earlier in your research.

All I can do is report my findings, which left enough room for doubt about a complete range of items that to this date have no documentary evidence that they are actually by the Nazeing company. That is to say there were and are no known illustrations or line drawings, either in the factory’s records, or in contemporary publications, that have come to light confirming the authenticity of the pieces in question. Nor has there been an arguement to convince me of their definate connection to the company. Similarity is not enough.

I generally find that if there are three or more characteristics that say that something might not be what you hope/imagine/claim, then it is not that thing. On the the other hand if you find three or more characteristics that say that an item is (in this case Nazeing) then in all probability it is. I formulated this rule of thumb from experience and, when applied objectively, it has stood me in good stead.  

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution before arriving at a conclusion, however, you the reader, are entitled to your own opinion, which I have said repeatedly when this subject has been aired on these boards (see another thread, “Nazeing basket?” dated 12 April 2005 – sorry I don’t know how to do the link thing. Perhaps someone else would be kind enough?).

I am also aware that one person’s word cannot be accurately used to document or confirm information from a bygone period. It is correct to use a minimum or two sources, three being preferable. It is for this reason that I do not categorically claim that these questionable pieces are not Nazeing and only flag it up as my thoughts on the subject. Hopefully any ensuing discussion might be relevant and indeed helpful – who knows someone out there may unknowingly hold the key and make entry!

I need to turn attention to the idea that the jug that started this thread bears direct resemblance to either the 1000/10 Water Lily vase that Geoff sights or the pre-war jugs that were included in the exhibition.

I am grateful to Geoff for pointing out the resemblance in form of both the exhibition jugs and the Water Lily jug, but I take issue with the idea that they are just different versions of the jug that started this thread. I seriously doubt whether Nazeing would claim that the shapes in question are one and the same.

Sadly, I do not have the means to take a photo, let alone put it onto the thread, so I’m afraid that the people who are reading and do not have a copy of Geoff’s book will have to put up with my descriptions.

Both the jugs in the exhibition and the Water Lily piece are basically of shaft and globe form, with adjustments. The bottom ‘half’ in each case is spherical, or globular. This runs up into a broadly cylindrical top ‘half’, with a handle attached. In each case it is looped up from the centre of the globular base curving up to the rim of the body where it is attached by flattening just below the rim.

In the case of the Water Lily piece the neck flows from the body in a continuous curvatious way, flaring outwards to the rim. The bottom of the handle is attached centrally to the bulbous body of the jug with a thickened end and is top attached just below the rim, taking a broad curving loop as its form.

Of the two jugs in the exhibition. One is May Green and has a typical pre-war pontil. Its handle, which is transparent blue, was attached to the body with a large ’pad’ which tapers until as a uniform thread it travels upward. It pushes slightly outward as it goes up, then curves over before being flattened where it attaches just below the rim. In other words a well executed, workmanlike piece of glass making. Although the shape is unrecorded, all the characteristics of the piece indicate it to be pre-war Nazeing, and, as Geoff has unwittingly indicated, it strongly resembles the Water Lily 1000/10 shape.

The second jug was white with a clear handle and could fairly be said to be the same shape as the May Green with transparent blue handle. Both pieces conform to a number of known characteristics of Nazeing – hence their inclusion in the exhibition, along with a large number of items with undocumented shapes and/or colours.

To my mind the resemblance between the shape of Ruth’s jug and the three I have described is only passing. Yes, agreed they are all jugs, and two are cloudy green. Of these two, one can be directly attributed as by Nazeing because of the number of characteristics that anchor it to the factory. Ruth’s piece, however is not finished in the same way, nor is the enamel used in the same way. Ruth’s jug is broadly speaking a cylinder with an elongated waist, having a clear handle placed on the side finishing well below the rim. The shape is unrecorded and does not resemble the Water Lily 1000/10, although there is a resemblance to Nazeing, since it conforms to the ‘cloudy’ technique. There is therefore reason to question its origin.

In my opinion you are not comparing like with like, Geoff. Indeed you are even making assumptions about the ability of the Nazeing glass blowers to produce the same shape time after time. I find this strange since the known and documented pieces that have been recorded to date are all consistent in their production and comply with the records that you have published. To suggest that Ruth’s piece is acceptable as the same shape because it is hand made and we should allow for inaccuracies by the blowers is a statement that I find astonishing.

It is strange how little (countable on one hand) known and fully attributable Nazeing turns up with a broken pontil – despite the assertion that Elwell took so much of it away. Of course it is always possible that much of what I have suspicion about could be the Elwell range that is discussed in the book, but as yet there is no critical proof, one way or the other. Oh, we’re back to where we started! You pay your money and you take your choice  :)  :)

Lastly, just as when Frank tried to tempt me to publish my research, in a previous thread, before I am ready, I shall decline your challenge – but wait a minute, I think you’ve made me say much more than I planned!

Phew, am I glad that’s done!! Sorry to have hijacked your thread Ruth :( . Where’s that large dram.

Kind regards to all, Nigel

© Nigel Benson 12 September 2005


Offline David555

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 715
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2005, 02:51:56 AM »
Hi

Here is a green piece which is Nazeing no doubt in my mind I have a few pieces - this shows off the same cloudy decoration as in the link - http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,612.0.html

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/blackcatgla/images/green%20posy%20copy.jpg - classic Nazeing

Also look how close it is to the original pictures http://tinypic.com/a3fvj4.jpg in colour and manufacture - these are Nazeing pieces - I live in Scotland and see Clutha all the time - the best stuff (money wise) is designed by Dr. C Dresser - I have books and catalogues on Clutha and it sparkles with tiny bubbles and aventurine

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/blackcatgla/images/clutha.jpg - classic Clutha

Prices are £100 for the full set of pieces in the first post to £1000s for the Clutha shown above

It seems an odd tangent to go off on for a simple question (no diss)

Adam D555 :twisted:  :twisted:
David is my Father's name, 555 is the number of man ('The Pixies'), but please call me ADAM P.


Offline Glassyone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2005, 03:03:12 AM »
You preempted my reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wanted to say that sparrows are more common than canaries and that sometimes perhaps one thing, the metal, might indicate glass coming  from the same stable!

I have a green Gray-Stan plate it is very different and Gray-Stan only produced for a short period of time.  

So the chances of one person having three pieces from boot sales that are Gray- Stan is very low.

On the other hand they match your 'classic Nazeing', exactly, in terms of the metal.

It seems unmistakable.

Now I must do some HOUSEWORK. Anne where are you???


Offline nigel benson

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
  • Gender: Male
  • British glass 1870-1980
    • British glass 1870-1980
    • http://www.20thcentury-glass.org.uk
Is it Clutha Glass?
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2005, 10:19:26 AM »
Hello again,

Briefly, as yet there is no proof that these are indeed Nazeing. It is only circumstantial. The same applies to the three green pieces you show in your link. The jug is the same as Ruth's one that started this thread.

I will be the first to put my hands up and say that these pieces are Nazeing if, and only if, proof, other than circumstantial comes to light. Tony's Elwell label is only a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, but sadly does not prove the link - other than that the seller sold both types of item.

I think that one has to be totally objective and critical when trying to attribute items to any factory, designer, or blower. It is not good enough to have something that basically looks the same, but on closer inspection has different characteristics to the original that one wishes it to be.

As I repeatedly say, these pieces may indeed turn out to be by Nazeing, but I believe that they all support different characteristics to known and documented pieces by that company. It is possible that they might be another range (probably cheaper, and of poorer quality - hence, also the number of small items that would be more affordable) by Nazeing, OR, they might be by other companies. At this stage I personally prefer to be careful and go for the quality end of the Nazeing factory's production.

Kind regards to all, Nigel

Offline David555

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 715
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2005, 07:30:00 PM »
Hi Ruth, Anne and Nigel

Nigel I take your point - I am mainly coming from the viewpoint that my little piece and the original pics are similar - you may well be right that they are not Nazeing - I think J Miller's Collectables good colour pics have led us to believe that they are - there are pictures with labels on and everything?

Ruth - look at pp335/336 of J Millers Collectables 2004 - there is a vase with exactly the same base, shape and decoration as the one in your first post

I think as well Nigel it is well to remember that Nazeing was more cheaply made compared to Gray-Stan, Monart/Vasart and Powell - that is reflected in the prices it goes for - I can buy a piece of labelled Nazeing (see glass fact file) for £30 (vase) try that with Monart or Gray-Stan

All best

Adam D555 :twisted:  :twisted:

http://publish.hometown.aol.co.uk/blackcatgla/images/grey%20stan%20copy.jpg - One of my bits of Gray-Stan, Nazeing employed similar techniques but the results were not as fine and controlled
David is my Father's name, 555 is the number of man ('The Pixies'), but please call me ADAM P.

Offline nigel benson

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 1079
  • Gender: Male
  • British glass 1870-1980
    • British glass 1870-1980
    • http://www.20thcentury-glass.org.uk
Is it Clutha Glass?
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2005, 09:19:41 PM »
Adam,

Nazeing more cheaply made?

Are you confusing the cost of items now with their original shop price? Or, have you taken time to compare contemporary production costs? [This is not a loaded question, just a need to understand where your coming from :) ] The modern prices of items are dependant on a number of things, not least of all, whether or not something has become fashionable.

Since I have been involved with 20th century British glass for over 30 years as a collector and 20 years as a dealer, I am lucky enough to have the longevity only a few have. I remember when Monart was £20-£30 on average, but could be found for £2.00. A rare, labelled surface enamelled could set you back as much as £65 if the seller was very knowledgable. Powell was not even rated by the huge majority of people and consequently started at about 20p with high prices at £10.00. Gray-stan was so rarely seen as to be insignificant, but might be priced as high as £18 - purely as an unknown piece of art glass with a funny name on it.

Prices of all of these items have gone through ups and downs, but the status of  collecting them has grown over the years.

Conversely, Nazeing is in its collecting infancy, which means that there are diverse views about its pricing - as well as opportunities to buy well.

Although I glanced at the 2004 Millers guide when it came out, I must confess that I don't remember what was in it. I certainly do not wish to slate any source of glass within these volumes (not least because I contribute to them from time-to-time), but it has long been recognised within the antiques trade that pricing, at the very least, can be manipulated for whatever reason.

When I wrote my little book on the 50's and 60's I took advice from contributors of items regarding price. I erred on the side of caution, after these discussions, and priced the pieces realistically. Why? Because so many times over the years publishing prices has changed a market - or part of it. In the case of Whitefriars glass by Geofrey Baxter, back in the late 80's, the market was totally destroyed for a 2 1/2 year period as everyone thought that they should price things at the prices mentioned in the guide. The market became moribund.

Bear in mind also that the person who lends a piece to a price guide tells the publisher what price to put on it, so there is very little consistancy to the pricing.

If one takes the opportunity to overprice things in order to project the price upwards, then everyone, dealer, bootfairer, auctioneer and collector will value something identically. Now you may say this is no bad thing, but I answer with a question. How will the market work if everyone marks something with the same value?

Indeed is the market false if is kept on a flat plain, or is it false if allowed to find its own way?

Just a few thoughts :)  Kind regards, Nigel

Offline Frank

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 9398
  • Gender: Male
    • Glass history
    • Gateway
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2005, 10:01:08 PM »
Over the last 20+ years I have also bought a lot of Monart-alikes and there are probably half a dozen that produced glass very similar to these 'Nazeingesque pieces' - sadly I got rid of them in the days before everything got photographed. If you look at the overall make up of each piece you will notice differences that are clearly from different hands and would not be consistent with a particular style from one period of one glassworks.

Interestingly, I see few such pieces in Holland and that would tend to indicate a likelihood that they are of UK production for the most part. Retailers like Elwell played a part as they were in touch with the market and would source from wherever they could. Similar glass also appears in Hill Ouston and there were a lot of small glass-works that appear to have started after the second war, but did not last very long or switched to importing.

We are familiar with only a handful of glass companies from the twentieth century and many more are going to be uncovered as time passes. From Nigel's remarks, he will be revealing some of this to the world in the not to, hopefully, distant future. But it takes time to uncover the history of the smaller glassworks - My article on Nazeing appeared in 1989 and it was many years before Geoff's seminal work appeared. I am still chipping away at Pirelli Glass and am currently working on a Moncrieff archive that contains a LOT of totally new information on their output from the 19th century and early twentieth. Ian Turner made some remarkable discoveries on the history of Monart only in the last year and so it goes on in just about every area of glass.

It is better to use terms like 'Style of' etc until firmer evidence is at hand. Even 'possibly' can be misleading! And yes, I was certainly guilty of hyping prices of Monart in Millers during the 80's when I was dealing in it.
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

Sklounion

  • Guest
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2005, 05:15:58 AM »
Nigel wrote:
Quote
Bear in mind also that the person who lends a piece to a price guide tells the publisher what price to put on it, so there is very little consistancy to the pricing.


An interesting view, Nigel.  

What confuses me is why, unlike second-hand books, (see Book Auction Records) most English language publishing houses offer, for the most part, desired price wish lists. The German publishers of Sammler und Trodler issue a price guide for glass, based solely on realised auction room prices,  starting from as little as 50 €. Arguably this is a better system than asking lenders for their opinion of value, and certainly avoids auction house estimates being included, which at best can be accurate, at worst, mere speculation. eBay has brought some transparency, to the market, but it also is the clearest illustration of what happens when two folks want the same item. Sadly completed auction prices are not retained and available for any significant length of time.

In some cases, for example S&T mentioned above, the guide is very useful, not just for glass prices, but for the high quality images of a wide range of European glass, but one needs to be aware that any attribution may still be inaccurate.

Regards,

Marcus

Offline Glassyone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Is this Clutha Glass? - Nazeing or Not Nazeing...
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2005, 08:47:05 AM »
Having read several books and these posts, my glass is not Cluthra. It is good to establish that much.

It maybe Nazeing, perhaps. based on science and sparrows.
Ruth

 

Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum
Enter
key words
to search
Amazon.com
This Website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand