Topic: id request please for possible Nazeing or Walsh.

[Paul S.]

feel best to start a new post -although this has, I think, strong connections with the immediately previous thread started by Paul Bowen.
My knowedge of these prewar/1950's is poor at best, and initially I thought this was Nazeing, until I picked it up, then confusion reigned.  The colourway is what appears to be a very pale amethyst  -  it has all of the requisite elongated bubbles, but has as you can see a snapped pontil scar, and the base of the inside is 'domed' a little.    There is a folded rim (did Nazeing go in for folded rims?)  -  but what is possibly most confusing is the surface of the outside, which is rough and actually quite pitted, more so towards the base.     It doesn't have that surface smoothness (and the ground concave pontil mark) that my one and only piece of Nazeing possess.     I thought of Walsh Pompeian, which was produced in amethyst, and which might have that rough outter surface.   It does ring like some of the best wfrs. , and as you can see quita bit of age judging by the matt wear ring under the foot.   Anyway, all at sea, so more than greatful for any help please, and thanks for looking.

[Paul S.]

apologies, please ignore the title for the pics.   bit of a cods on the archivists part there

[flying free]

that's very beautiful   and I have absolutely no experience of handling any of this glass so my observations are quite possibly useless  , but the closeup of the base showing the texture reminded me of the Arculus glass in Charles Hajdamach's 20th Century British glass page 100 (but the shape and the colour are not shown).  However, not ever having seen any I have no idea if it really is similar.  Then I looked at Nazeing pictures and there is a picture of a similar shape bowl shown on page 107 bottom plate.
And then, the pontil looks vaguely similar to the pontil on my piece of Gray Stan - but I don't recall seeing Gray Stan in this type of decor in any of the few scarce pics I have seen.

So, really not helpful at all but I like it :hiclp:

m

[nigel benson]

Hello,

I saw this yesterday and felt lazy, so thought I'd wait and see what others think, but I will say, neither Nazeing, nor Gray-Stan. Why Walsh?

Nigel

[Paul S.]

thanks to both of you.      As I have lamented elsewhere, these pre-second war colourways seem to be a nightmare to attribute correctly - especially if, like me, you possess very few other pieces with which to make comparisons.  Why Walsh, Nigel  - no particular academic reason, other than that they did produce an amethyst colour (which don't believe Nazeing did), and as mentioned, the outer suface of the piece is very rough and pitted (unlike my one and only piece of Nazeing).    This suggested to me possibly Pompeian.    These are only my inexperienced thoughts  -  and may well not really lead to the actual answer.    What do people think of the folded rim?

[nigel benson]

Hi Paul,

Nazeing's amethyst is known as 'Mulberry', and, as you rightly note, does not have a pitted/rough surface.

Walsh Pompeian has bubble inclusions throughout a self-coloured metal (transparent colour), this footed bowl has flecks of colour within clear metal.

Nigel

[Mosquito]

I don't really see why you're only thinking pre-war/ 50s for this - it looks like it could be modern studio production, the rough pontil & folded rim would certainly be consistent with this.

[Paul S.]

Steven  -  have to admit that it was the shape plus the fact that there is quite a noticeable matt wear ring on the underside of the foot that lead me to attribute some age.    I have also looked at the inside surface - catching the light - and there are definitely small scratches and marks which seem to indicate use over a period of time.    However, I appreciate it is possible to fake these.

[Lustrousstone]

Sometimes they just happen when something is used or moved and dusted a lot. It doesn't take long...

[paulbowen]

Thank you for thinking of me.  Although I cannot comment on this piece, I must say that I've really gained a healthy appreciation for British glass through this site in general, and the recent couple of threads that I was part of in particular.  This is a really nice bowl.  British glass is much more diverse, and high quality, than I ever realized before.  Keep up the good work, everyone!