Whitefriars floral inkwell

[chriscooper]

http://tinyurl.com/yfkrgum

Current debate running on Whitefriars.com can anyone help
Chris

[johnphilip]

Yes ask Brian Slingsby or Ray Annenberg ,Brian was technical director and Ray cane maker , if they dont know who does ? ytl Sue  jp  How ya doin Chris been deleted lately on the other channel Warm Regards mate . JP

[chriscooper]

  How ya doin Chris been deleted lately on the other channel Warm Regards mate . JP

Not yet this week John boy   time yet though, think our time is up in this politicly correct world mate do you? better go now before I get my knuckles rapped for wandering of topic (then again it is my post ) keep well you old scoundrel and don't forget a spade will always be  a spade
Chris

[tropdevin]

***

Hi.

I noted these when they came up at auction recently, and concluded that they were most likely Whitefriars rather than 'Old English'. The canes look very like early 1950s Whitefriars canes - but there remains an uncertainty with that general attribution: there was close working / co-operation between Walsh Walsh and Whitefriars in certain areas of their glass making - eg lighting - shortly before Walsh Walsh closed in 1951 (according to Brian Slingsby).  It may be that this cane design originates with Walsh Walsh in the late 1940s, and was carried forward to Whitefriars. Both used similar heavy lead crystal, so I doubt that one can distinguish from the glass.

The bottles are certainly not pre-WWII Old English.

I would suggest they are 'early 1950s, probably Whitefriars'! 

Alan

[johnphilip]

Hi Chris r u saying i am digging my own grave  . Back on subject i agree with Allan , MY GOD i nearly said ALLIEN . :chky: Spring must be here . Just kidding Allan .

[-Monkey-]

Hi to all. My first time here - thought I'd better join in, since it was me who started the thread over on WF.

As a sub-mystery, both signatures have very exaggerated right-hand tails to the R's, yet on the blueish i/w the R tails are very curled up at the end, whilst on the pink one they're dead straight. I think it's most unlikely that one person has added both these signatures, since surely they'd both be written in the same style? They do vary subtly in other ways too. I've now read that some late 60's/early 70's WF studio pieces were signed Whitefriars, but were dated too? (these have no dates, that I can see).  

But the main thing I'm intrigued about is exactly what that central cane symbol is about (in the blueish i/w).

Here's the link to the pics album. Shots of everything on there, including a closeup of the cane symbol:
http://s934.photobucket.com/albums/ad181/LeSange/Whitefriars%20Inkwells/


Big thanks to all for the interesting and helpful comments so far!
Paul.

[tropdevin]

Hi Paul

The centre cane is intriguing, but I always start from the 'It's a squished cane' position, and then try to find an alternative explanation.  If only that were a more common approach we would have far less fantasy in eBay descriptions!

Your centre cane could well have nothing more than a distorted 4 lobe cross in the centre - it has a high degree of symmetry.  I wrote an article on how Walsh Walsh and Arculus, when making a simple 4 lobe cross cane for Old English weights, could end up with the well known "7/6" cane, "window" canes, and various letter and number canes!  It is in the 2006 Annual Bulletin of the PCA, and called 'Alphabet Soup: The Origins of Old English "7/6" Canes.

I would not rule out your centre cane being something made specially - but my money is presently on 'squished cane'. If the person setting the canes out saw an attractive design in a cane, albeit made by accident, they might well use it. I'm sure Clichy often did that with bits of cane that looked to have a 'C' in them.

Alan

[-Monkey-]

Hi Paul

The centre cane is intriguing, but I always start from the 'It's a squished cane' position, and then try to find an alternative explanation.  If only that were a more common approach we would have far less fantasy in eBay descriptions!

Your centre cane could well have nothing more than a distorted 4 lobe cross in the centre - it has a high degree of symmetry.  I wrote an article on how Walsh Walsh and Arculus, when making a simple 4 lobe cross cane for Old English weights, could end up with the well known "7/6" cane, "window" canes, and various letter and number canes!  It is in the 2006 Annual Bulletin of the PCA, and called 'Alphabet Soup: The Origins of Old English "7/6" Canes.

I would not rule out your centre cane being something made specially - but my money is presently on 'squished cane'. If the person setting the canes out saw an attractive design in a cane, albeit made by accident, they might well use it. I'm sure Clichy often did that with bits of cane that looked to have a 'C' in them.

Alan

Hi Alan. Lots of food for thought there thanks. Allan Port at paperweights.com said he believed they're probably Arculus or W-W, so maybe late W-W as you suggest?

Don't know what to think about the central cane - either possibility sounds plausible to me. As for those full WHITEFRIARS freehand etched signatures - no ideas about how they'd figure. Possibly added later but they're different handwriting to each other I believe. If they are genuine signatures, of course that rules out other makers completely.

Fascinating stuff!

Paul.

[-Monkey-]

Edit: Oops, sorry, double posted there.

[jamalpa36]

Hi All

I have that central cane or one very similar in a 1950's concentric and in a 1953 EllR weight. in both cases i have a ring of identical canes. I do not think it is a distorted cane but do not know the reason for it either.

Roy

[-Monkey-]

Hi All

I have that central cane or one very similar in a 1950's concentric and in a 1953 EllR weight. in both cases i have a ring of identical canes. I do not think it is a distorted cane but do not know the reason for it either.

Roy

Hi Roy, sounds like a strong clue there thanks  . Very interesting. I was just about giving up on finding out anything about the symbol.

Would you happen to have any pics you could post up please? I have seen one of the 1953 ER weights, but no sign of that symbol (nor in any other weights I've looked at so far).

Perhaps tying in with something Allan Port said to me earlier - that the only way the WHITEFRIARS signatures could be real was if the inkwells were made in the 1950s when paperweight production began again at WF, though he did also say he believed they were probably Arculus or W-W, in which case the signatures would've been added later. He didn't mention the cane symbol.

After what you've said I'm now much more hopeful of finding out when, and by whom, these were made.


Best regards,
Paul.

 



 

[-Monkey-]

Sorry, just to acknowledge and thank - Tropdevin too suggests early 1950s earlier up the thread. A notion that's gathering 'weight'? 


Here's the pic of the symbol again, to save anyone visiting the link:-

(http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad181/LeSange/Whitefriars%20Inkwells/symbol.jpg)

[jamalpa36]

Hope these work

The weight without the centre cane is the EllR 1953

[-Monkey-]

Hope these work

The weight without the centre cane is the EllR 1953

Fantastic stuff Roy! The best lead so far. I think this completely 'squishes' the squished cane possibility?

Now looking odds-on to me the inkwells are indeed 50s WF.

As your 1953 ER weight also includes the symbol canes, it must be a bit special? I've looked at two others and they don't have it.

Maybe this symbol is one that was only used by a particular cane maker at WF in the 50s? I bet someone out there would know.

Re the etched signatures on the inkwell bases, does anyone know if these were added to all 50s WF pieces, or just a few? I'm strongly inclined to believe they're genuine signatures. They're tiny so would imagine a bit difficult for a novice to do?


 

[-Monkey-]

Yes ask Brian Slingsby or Ray Annenberg ,Brian was technical director and Ray cane maker , if they dont know who does ? ytl Sue  jp  How ya doin Chris been deleted lately on the other channel Warm Regards mate . JP

Hi jp, can you let me know how I could contact Brian/Ray please? Sorry to ask but I'm a bit new to this.

Many thanks,
Paul.