Topic: Walsh-Walsh? Iridescent mould/hand blown ; ID = Walsh Walsh, mother of pearl

[mrvaselineglass]

The opalescent spot pattern on the sides of the vase is called 'HORSE CHESTNUT'.  This mold was used by Richardson of Wordsley and then in 1935, the mold was sold to Thomas Webb & Sons.  I have had this vase with the mother of pearl finish in vaseline/uranium glass.  It was very light colored.  When Webb got the mold, he added a higher concentration of uranium to the batch to make it more yellow.  I have not seen one by Webb with the higher concentration of uranium, so I don't know if Webb also did the mother of pearl finish.  I am pretty sure that it was Richardson (and not Webb) that made your vase. 

Mr. Vaseline Glass

[Baked_Beans]

Thanks Mr Vaseline Glass,
Once molds start changing hands it makes things very complicated ! Ahhhh ! Trying to identify glass is difficult enough as it is (especially being a novice like me) :cry:  How did you find out about the selling of the mold !?
Thanks for the help. Mike.

[mrvaselineglass]

look at color photo #202 (and narrative) in Cyril Manley's book, DECORATIVE VICTORIAN GLASS.  Manley has a larger vase illustrated, with the same opalescent spot pattern.  Richardson closed in 1926, Webb bought the mold in 1936 (according to Manley).

[Baked_Beans]

Thanks very much ...I shall order the book from the library ! Cheers, Mike.

[Mosquito]

I'm confused here; the vase has been identified as Walsh Walsh, it's in a typically Walsh colour/ finish, so why the mention of Richardson & Webbs? Is Manley the only source for this information? Certainly Manley's book was a landmark publication, but it's getting on for 30 years old and some of the information and attributions contained therein have now been called into doubt...

[mrvaselineglass]

No disrespect is intended (especially to Bernard), but the only mention in this thread on identification of this piece to John Walsh Walsh is Bernard:
"Yes, that floral / leaf pattern is a well known Walsh pattern, known in mother of pearl and other types of Walsh glass."

I have the mentioned book on Walsh Walsh (by Reynolds) and I have looked through it several times (the last time just now) and I saw no spot pattern that was the same as in this vase.  The spot pattern starts as a mold.  Even after a piece is manipulated into various shapes, that same spot pattern can be still identified.  Manley actually shows the same spot pattern in his book.  Yes, I know there are some off-the-wall identifications in Manley's book, but who is to say that this is one of them?  Is there anything in research materials that states that "only John Walsh Walsh had this mother-of-pearl irridescent' coating"  There are companies in the US that have made a similar irridescent finish over the top of glass and it is done by spraying mineral salts in a liquid solution over the piece when it is still hot.  (same is done to make carnival glass with a different mineral salts formula).  Who is to say that either Richardson or Webb did not do the same thing?  Especially Webb, who had the mold in later years. Companies copied lots of designs, patterns, and glass treatments that they saw had a good market.  Lots of companies figured out how to make glass look like their competitors glass.  I would love to have this mystery solved, as I am a big fan of John Walsh Walsh.  I have had pieces with this mother-of-pearl finish in my collection.  I also have pieces by John Walsh Walsh (in an opalescent spot pattern known as OPALINE BROCADE, a famous documented pattern) that do not have that finish.  There are several pieces in the Reynolds book that show the mother-of-pearl finish, but NONE are this spot pattern. 

(side note on other companies copying patterns: Northwood stole the OPALINE BROCADE pattern from John Walsh Walsh.  Walsh Walsh introduced it in 11/1897 and is shown in an original ad from POTTERY GAZETTE in Reynolds' book, pg. 13.  Northwood introduced it in the US in 1/1899, just 14 months later). 

I would love for someone to show me either Manley was wrong on this particular identification, or to have someone point out the page and picture in Reynolds' book that shows this is an identified Walsh Walsh pattern.  The majority of the Reynolds book is reproductions of the original pattern books, and I may have missed it, but did not see it.  Also, if this pattern is such a well known Walsh Walsh pattern (and it seems to show up with some frequency on ebay), you would think Reynolds would have included some mention (or even a photo of) this pattern. 

Mr. Vaseline Glass

[Mosquito]

Mr. Vaseline Glass,

I'm just intrigued to know your source for the information about Richardson having this mould and it being later passed to Webb. I have not heard this information before & would be intrigued to know where it came from (other than Manley), especially as it appears that ownership of the mould is the basis for your attribution.

[Baked_Beans]

Just a note on a nice little book on Thomas Webb & Sons.

The book is entitled "Art, Feat and Mystery" The story of Thomas Webb & Sons, Glassmakers by H W Woodward. This book was actually published by Mark & Moody Ltd a Stourbridge printing firm back in 1978 the copywright to the book was owned by Thomas Webb & Sons. ISBN no 0950643904

The author Mr Woodward was Librarian and Curator at Brierley Hill , Staffordshire from 1938 to 1966 in charge of the public libraries and glass museum. Mr Woodward grew the glass collection from 200 to 800 pieces over the years that he was there !

Anyway , on page 25 he writes " In the early 1930's , the old established firm of Henry G Richardson & Sons was acquired by Webb's, who continued to produce Richardson patterns at Dennis (the glassworks for Webbs) trading them under the Richardson name. Mr Ben Richardson died in 1956 "

He also writes " At Dennis Hall is a wealth of Richardson and Webb pattern and price books dating from the early part of the 19th century and catalogues of the 20th , presenting an impressive panorama of the products of the two firms for a century and a half. Apart from the extensive range of decorative and tableware there is a long run of Richardson lighting patterns. Webb pattern numbers have now reached the total of 53,000 -but one pattern number may include a number of items"

It seems then that although Webbs bought Richardson they traded still under their different names of a while at least.

Perhaps if this vase is Richardson/Webb then the pattern can be found in amoungst the 53,000 mentioned above. I wonder where they are ?

Cheers, Mike.

[Bernard C]

Hi Mike, Dave & Steven,

Sorry about the delay — Cambridge fair & its aftermath, and I've been checking sources.

My first reaction to your initial post, Dave, was a memory that I had seen that piece in a published book somewhere.   So I set about finding it.   Your naming the pattern so positively was a big clue — probably Heacock, so I went through everything of his I've got in my library, twice — no luck.   So then I went through everything else, and so did my OH, Janet.   Over a cuppa we decided it must be Manley, and I can recall seeing that illustration in the book.

Back to Sunday at the fair.   We had one display of eleven items, all by one master glassmaker.   When you see it all together you can see this, with common elements running through all the pieces.   There were nine examples of mother of pearl, one with applied green seaweed, eight in flint mother of pearl, and one in dark green mother of pearl.   Two of the flint mother of pearl pieces were bowls in the same pattern as Mike's.   The other two were a large flint bowl in the same pattern as Mike's, and a rather way out example of studio or art glass including real aventurine (copper shavings).   Several of these pieces were fully documented Walsh, appearing in either Reynolds or Gulliver with rock solid attributions.

So, why did Manley attribute the pattern to Richardson.   There is, of course, no reason why Richardson's couldn't have owned a horse chestnut pattern dip mould, but I've never seen its use.   Whatever, Mike's bowl is from the same source as mine, and is not Richardson.   A more likely explanation is to consider the state of glass knowledge when Manley wrote his book.   At that time Walsh was not considered a possible attribution for unmarked and undocumented hand-made fancy glass, in the same way as Smart Bros, Molineaux Webb, and Kempton still aren't today.

If you don't believe me, then so be it.   But I would prefer you to examine and handle this stock before making a judgment.   Photographs are no substitute for this.

Bernard C. 

[keith]

Just out of interest Bernard,do you have pictures of the pieces you mentioned,I would love to see them,
                                                                                                                                 Keith.