id request for amber drinking glass

[Paul S.]

bearing in mind the colour, plus the waisted shape and the rather large ground and polished pontil mark  -  I wondered if it might possibly have been wfrs.    However, having looked through the catalogues, I now don't think it is.      You can see the slight Wrythen style as well  -  but the rather large ground pontil mark seemed unusual if it had been a low cost item.     About 145mm tall.     Interested if anyone has any ideas or comments, and thanks for looking.

[robbo]

Hi - it looks like one of these, on the right in the main photo. Must have come in three sizes judging by the line drawings but I can't make out a pattern number or the sizes.

http://www.whitefriarsorg.org/memb1/cat-60/p07.jpg

robbo

[Paul S.]

thanks robbo  -  I am a little wiser now and do try some research before I post, so was aware of course that there is this 'waisted' M104 tumbler from at least a couple of catalogues.   However, I don't know if M104 is quite this 'waisted' or even that it had a 'wrythen' style like mine.    From experience I know that there is a world of difference between 'looking like this', and actually being the real thing.    Sincere thanks for your interest, and we now need an expert to help, I think.  My problem is that whenever I see 'amber/gold' with a ground pontil I automatically think of wfrs.

[robbo]

Hi Paul—no one else has contributed here—so I thought I'd have another stab 
Your piece is definitely not an M104 tumbler—like you say yourself M104 has no optic ribbing and has a less pronounced waist.
The catalogue link I posted above was for a vase from the 1960 catalogue, available in three sizes. Like I said, I can't make out the pattern no. or sizes from the scan, but the photograph shows a vase of the same shape as your piece, with a pronounced waist and vertical optic ribbing.
Also check pattern #9464 from the 1957 catalogue (but appears only available in 13" in the '57 catalogue).

From experience I know that there is a world of difference between 'looking like this', and actually being the real thing.

I agree; but if I felt I didn't have something to contribute then I wouldn't have bothered.

My problem is that whenever I see 'amber/gold' with a ground pontil I automatically think of wfrs.

or Stuart, or Webb or a good few others! The important thing, IMHO, is the way the pontil mark has been ground out & polished in combination with a whole host of other factors.

[Paul S.]

robbo  -  thanks for the contribution again.    Apologies if you thought I was 'knocking' your comments, certainly not my intention  -  it's just that I try to be a little more cautious now and think before I engage mouth , and I sense you may well know a lot more about wfrs. than me.    In fact I had hoped that one of the other wfrs. buffs may have added something to help.    I will continue looking, and you are correct of course that amber/gold etc. cud well be any one of several sources, and I may have to put this particular piece on the back burner when I have more time and perhaps have some more inspiration.    thanks again.     Paul S.