The one in Jackson does not seem the same as yours. Try Pattern 1289 in the 1931 catalogue. It is MORE similar, but doesn't seem to have the bubbles and it is shorter than yours. ...
Emmi â€” Thanks for taking this topic seriously. I agree that it's not 1289, but there is a slim chance that it could be Woodchester #11, if, for example, that particular illustration was drawn from a written description rather than an actual example â€” say along the lines of "tumbler vase with protruding foot and two horizontal bands of four raspberry prunts arranged at 45Â° to each other." That would also explain the bands being drawn on the illustration. The coarse milling on the foot could be Whitefriars being true to the fragments found at Woodchester. Does anyone have the Woodchester archaelogical report?
The one aspect of this that I feel is decisive is the strange reaction to my UV testing lamp, not a reaction I would have expected from an English between the wars golden amber like that used by Webb or Stuart, but I can't recall ever testing a known Whitefriars example. Informed comment sought please.
Nigel â€” Thank you for reiterating the obvious. If you take the trouble to read my previous reply, you will see that I am working from a position of having acquired an unwelcome example of modern deceptive repro, produced with fraudulent intent, and that I am checking it out properly with the faint hope that I am wrong. You may be surprised to know that, if justified, I am perfectly capable of both publicising this to warn collectors of and dealers in Whitefriars glass, and of ensuring that the vase ends up in the appropriate place.