Topic: Art nouveau/Arts and Crafts vase, maker info please ID= Stuart & Sons

[Bernard C]

...   Yes, Stuart & Sons, late ninetenth century design.   ...

Nigel — Interesting that you refine Mervyn's date.   The earliest date I've found for peacock's eye trail decoration is the drawing submitted with the Stuart & Sons design registration of September 8, 1906.   It is not clear to me whether the decoration was part of the registration or not, so I can only conclude from this evidence that the decoration was designed by September 1906, in the same way as the Walsh registration of April 28, 1911 indicates a "by date" rather than an "on date" for that decoration.    How do you get back over half a decade earlier?

... and is this why Hajdamach omitted peacock's eye trail decoration?   Because he could not find any evidence to substantiate a popular late nineteenth century date for the design?   I believe it is fairly obvious that Hajdamach avoided controversy, and I've often wondered why I couldn't find any mention of this important decoration.

...   For a short essay on Arts & Crafts Glass and some photos of items from various British manufacturers, http://www.20thcentury-glass.org.uk/nigelbenson20thcenturyglass/id60.html   ...

Fine for the novice or the glossy magazine, Nigel, and some extremely useful illustrated items, but in my opinion rather too broad-brush with unsubstantiated conclusions for this topic, which is all about the attribution of one particular item, and could be cited in an on-line auction description.

Bernard C.  

[nigel benson]

Bernard,

I take it that you're using Gulliver, Hajdamach and the GA Blue Book? Or, perhaps you've been to the Records Office to find the information you refer to above? You do not share the source(s) that you are using for your conclusion of

the Stuart & Sons design registration of September 8, 1906.

You're quite right to be speciific about dating (when are we going out?)  

Thank you so much for your spontaneous critique of my short essay. I never claimed it to be my magnum opus, in fact I aimed it specifically at the novice collector, many of whom frequent these pages, so your confirmation is gratefully received.

Nigel

[Bernard C]

Nigel — Gulliver p269 for Mervyn's copyright tracing of the original (which, for other readers, is why we can't reproduce it here).   Careless of me.

Unfortunately we've just missed Woburn's festival des huitres, so how about next autumn?  :kissy:

I'm glad you're pleased with my review — just let me know if you want any more.   

Bernard C. 

[nigel benson]

... and is this why Hajdamach omitted peacock's eye trail decoration?   Because he could not find any evidence to substantiate a popular late nineteenth century date for the design?   I believe it is fairly obvious that Hajdamach avoided controversy,

I realise that you are musing about the subject Bernard, but whilst I often wonder about what is behind the inclusion or exclusion of items, or topics, by an author, I realise it is pointless trying to make any assumptions about their thought processes, or decisions, that I cannot substantiate. So, if it is not possible check with that author, why bother?

Suffice to say that I would not have made my original statement if I felt it was misleading. Having done my own reading and research on the subject of teardrops, amongst other Arts & Crafts and Art Nouveau devices used on glass, I am confident in my assertion - especially since I haven't limited myself to the books I had on my shelf.

I explained about this, and a number of other features that allow us to determine the differences between manufacturers and the dating of their work in the talk(s) I gave to members of the Glass Association at Blackwell, back in July, at the beginning of the Powell Glass Exhibition (which, by the by, finishes on 1st Nov 2009).

Nigel