Author Topic: Davidson 279 vases query  (Read 1114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Smith

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • glass
    • England
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2010, 12:07:11 AM »
Cathy, no offence taken or given.  I just say like it is, through shared and ongoing lifes experience.  "EVIDENCE!" what can i say?  I am not here to question the works of others, or their endeavours, but whatever I say I am prety sure to know to be correct with what I "DO" know.  I don't know everything. I do't know it ALL!,  but hey, am not here to give wrongful information. Am doing my best without trying to brag and shared KNOWLEDGE is priceless. etc. etc. 


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3101
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2010, 05:30:15 AM »
lovesglass β€” I am intrigued by your assertions, and would welcome more information on how they came about.   Glass is an interesting collectable as it generates a huge number of misconceptions which can be quite difficult to correct.   I will give you two examples:-

...   the state of glass knowledge when Manley wrote his book.   At that time Walsh was not considered a possible attribution for unmarked and undocumented handmade fancy glass, in the same way as Smart Bros, Molineaux Webb, and Kempton still aren't today.   ...

I wrote this rather cynical comment only recently, and it shows how the glass community still has a long way to go to achieve reality.   Click on the quote heading for the context.

The second came about at the recent Dulwich fair.   A dealer asked me if there was anything about glass we could assume.   I replied "No, nothing at all."   I then went on to explain that you cannot even assume that the glassworks were in it to make money, as, certainly at Joblings and Bagleys there was an element of fancy glass production being motivated by the requirement of keeping their mouldmakers occupied at times when they weren't needed for the production of Pyrex or bottle moulds.    The requirement to make money, or, possibly more realistically, not to lose too much money, may have been secondary.

As a dealer, I've probably handled more Davidson glass than most on this message board, probably something like 500 items.   I started before Chris Stewart showed any interest and initially I had to work it out as I went along with the help of some original Davidson documentation.  Our knowledge has improved dramatically since then.

A large proportion of Davidson glass is frosted β€” and much of this is cloud glass, which is part-frosted, usually on the inside.   If you look at the boundary between the frosted and unfrosted parts, you will see that it is always quite sharp, a definitive characteristic of acid-matting, as the glass was either matted where it was exposed or not matted where the wax resist was applied.   In contrast sandblasting gives you a soft boundary line as very little of the sand gets right up to the edge of the resist.   You can also tell the two techniques apart by feel.   Acid-matting gives you a soft, silky surface, whereas fine sandblasting gives you a good grip with no silkiness, quite different.

Steve's two 10" 279s are standard Davidson items without any doubt whatsoever.   

Quote from: Davidson's 1936 price list giving wholesale ex-factory gate prices
VASES
No. 279 10" β€” Amber and Emerald / Matt or Matt Polished Per Dozen 27/-

Finally I would be happier if you used Davidson terminology.   The three sizes were 6", 8", and 10" whether 279s or 279Ds (with the rim turned over), whatever their actual measurements.   Davidson never used metric measures in their British Empire and American literature.   Unfortunately some museum-trained professionals who should know better use metric measures in these circumstances and can come up with statements as ludicrous as "Telford had milestones placed at intervals of 1,609 metres along all his turnpikes."

Bernard C.  8) 
Text and Images Copyright © 2004–14 Bernard Cavalot


Offline uraniumsteve

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2010, 08:54:14 AM »
WOW! what a debate whilst I was sleeping. This is very exiting I will try to offer more information

They do not have flat bottoms
They weigh (just for you Bernard) 2Lbs 13 oz  Thats just under 1.3k to those of you who don't remember metric
The mark on the underside is hand written it looks like pencil I tried to wash it off as it appears to be on the outside but it isnt. The vase with the mark is partially smooth ie not sand blasted I assume to be able to read the mark. I cannot post a picture as my camera is not good enough.
They have moulding lines I can feel them but only just, funnily enough more so on the outside


Offline Mosquito

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 844
  • Gender: Male
    • 中国 (China)
    • Jobling Art Glass
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2010, 11:32:12 AM »
I've seen pencil marks before on Davidson, they could have been added at any time and are not necessarily factory marks. For example, I have a pink chevron vase (partially acid matted by the way) which has 3/6 written on the base in pencil which I guess is the original price, probably added by the retailer. These marks don't tend to wash off easily if they're on a frosted surface - certainly I noticed the mark on my vase only when I was drying the piece!


They have moulding lines I can feel them but only just, funnily enough more so on the outside


This is quite usual, in fact, I can see no reason why a piece of pressed glass would have mould lines on the inside. Plungers for vases are typically solid, made from one piece. Mould seams occur at the joins between the sections of the metal moulds and are therefore on the outside surface of a piece. Of course, there may be other marks on the interior of a pressed vase, such as the shear mark, but these give no real clue as to the vase's origin.

Whilst there's been an interesting discussion regarding these vases, I have no doubt that these are Davidson. This is based not only on Bernard's observations and the excellent research conducted by Chris Stewart but also on my years handling Davidson glass, as well as pressed glass from a wealth of other makers.

While Lovesglass obviously has an enthusiasm for the subject, I have yet to be convinced by his argument that these are not Davidson production. The fact that they are a known and well doumented Davidson pattern and are in a typical Davidson colour and finish means the only reasonable conclusion at this stage is that they are most likely Davidson vases. Now, if lovesglass were to produce say a catalogue or advertisement from another maker also showing this pattern, then we might have cause to question the attribution, but as this is not the case & Lovesglass hasn't yet backed up his claim that this is not a Davidson colour with any form of verifiable evidence, then I wouldn't have any problem describing these as Davidson.

Steven



Online Lustrousstone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 10565
  • Gender: Female
    • Warrington, UK
    • My Gallery
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2010, 11:36:16 AM »
There is no debate. These are without doubt Davidson vases and satinised by either acid treatment or sand-blasting (only handling would tell).

For the mark to be on the inside, it would appear reversed on the outside. It sounds like a pencil stock mark, and if it is on satinised glass will require vigorous scrubbing for removal. Take the best picture you can of the base for us to have a look at. If your camera has no macro, stand at the minimum focusing distance and zoom in for as far as it stays in focus.

In pressed glass, like these vases, mould lines are most identifiable on the outside because the smooth plunger smooths them out on the inside. They occur because the outer mould has to split so the glass can be got out. How easily mould seams are felt or seen depends on the quality of the finishing process and how worn the mould is.


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3101
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2010, 12:17:44 PM »
Please never try to remove pencil marks unless they are seriously obtrusive.   They can tell us original retail prices, about which we know almost nothing as in Steven's example, or, as Christine says, they could be stock numbers which might identify the wholesaler or retailer.

Lovesglass β€” I've had a flash of inspiration!   Sowerbys did not resume acid-matting of their fancy glass upon restarting production after WWII.   Could your source be getting these two big Gateshead factories confused?

Bernard C.  8)
Text and Images Copyright © 2004–14 Bernard Cavalot


Online Lustrousstone

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 10565
  • Gender: Female
    • Warrington, UK
    • My Gallery
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2010, 12:42:32 PM »
Sowerby did use sandblasting on some of their post-war production


Offline uraniumsteve

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2010, 08:32:13 AM »
 Wahey! I managed to get the macro on my camera working again. So here is a picture of the base although it is still not brilliant


Offline Adam

  • Glass Professional
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Sowerby 1949-56, Davidson 1956-61, Jobling 1961-72
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2010, 10:32:06 AM »
Sowerbys pre-WW2 did some acid work but I don't know any details.  Post-war they did no acid work, at least until 1956 when I left.  Quite a lot of sand-blasting was done in the same period.

At Davidsons, when I was there (1956-61) a great deal of acid work was done (the River Team was heavily polluted with our effluent as well as everyone else's!) but no sandblasting at all.

Adam D.


Offline chopin-liszt

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 7654
Re: Davidson 279 vases query
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2010, 12:41:51 PM »
Lovesglass - you say you are a glassmaker/blower yourself  :hiclp:

- would you be so kind as to show us some of your work - obviously in a new thread - we'd love to see it.
Cheers, Sue (M)

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” Friedrich Nietzsche

 

This Website is provided by Angela Bowey, PO Box 113, Paihia 0247, New Zealand