Author Topic: Monart? Gray-Stan?  (Read 952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RichardP

  • Members
  • **
  • Posts: 4
Re: Monart? Gray-Stan?
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2012, 04:33:38 PM »
Many thanks Nigel, the mystery is solved, im very grateful. :hiclp:

I will take some more photos and email them to you shortly.

That really is the beauty of collecting glass, you never stop learning.

I assume that HMH glassware is pretty scarce then, are there any examples at Broadfield house or infact anywhere?


Offline nigel benson

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 1043
  • Gender: Male
  • British glass 1870-1980
    • British glass 1870-1980
    • http://www.20thcentury-glass.org.uk
Re: Monart? Gray-Stan?
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2012, 11:41:26 PM »

As far as I'm aware, there are no documented examples of the art glass similar to those in the image that Bernard used. However, on reflection I believe I have seen three examples that, at the time, I had no idea who they were by and are no longer traceable :o ::)

All were on seperate occasions and at auction.

Nigel


Offline Bernard C

  • Committee
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 3157
  • Milton Keynes based British glass dealer
Re: Monart? Gray-Stan?
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2012, 07:56:09 AM »
As far as I'm aware, there are no documented examples of the art glass similar to those in the image that Bernard used. However, on reflection I believe I have seen three examples that, at the time, I had no idea who they were by and are no longer traceable.   ...

I don't think it's necessarily that simple.

One aspect of industry and commerce missed by many with little experience of business is the consultative representative, sometimes one person, sometimes a team of two or more.   I was one of these, selling systems software to mainframe computer users at all levels, from MD to systems programmer.   Selling involved all aspects from demonstrating the product, through the formal sales process, to helping implement the product effectively to ensure a satisfied client.   One of the products I sold for several years was Shadow, a fast, efficient, limited facility teleprocessing monitor, directly competing with IBM's MTCS and CICS.   For Shadow the UK was split into two sales areas — the Home Counties and the rest, my patch.   An interesting aspect of this became evident to the central support team in London.   They could tell which patch a client was in by subtle differences in the way Shadow was implemented and used.   So each of the two UK sales teams had left its own permanent imprint on the client's use of the product.

The same applied to colouring mineral suppliers.   Their reps were consultative reps, doing exactly the same as me.   We know this because that's the way industry works.   We also have documentary proof in the extensive use of coding for both trade prices and piecework rates in factory pattern books in attempts to conceal this information from such reps.

Now compare the Haden, Mullett & Haden advertisement with the illustrations of Nazeing in Timberlake.   Notice similar tooling of the coloured enamels.   Also note the integral foot on the two vases on the left, a common Nazeing feature.   There is enough similarity to suggest the same consultative representative.   If this is true, then the two glassworks were likely to be using the same set of colouring minerals in the same way.

So I don't think that attributing to one or the other today is necessarily as cut and dried as Nigel suggests, indeed it is possible that a few examples attributed today to Nazeing might well be Haden, Mullett & Haden.

Finally it looks as if Haden, Mullett & Haden did not relaunch this range after the war.   I can't help wondering whether Elwell bought up their unsold stock and sold it with Elwell labels!    ;D

... just thinking out loud ...  :angel:

Bernard C.  8)
Text and Images Copyright 200414 Bernard Cavalot


Offline KevinH

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • *
  • Posts: 4315
    • England
Re: Monart? Gray-Stan?
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2012, 04:33:22 PM »
Bernard, your comments regarding consultative reps are interesting. I agree that such folk can often have an influence on implementations of basic products. When, in a role of IT Quality Assurance Analyst, I attended a meeting discussing possible use of early touch screen monitors, our thoughts on use of such technology was indeed initially influenced by the reps. However, later, back at base, we considered things further and were mainly influenced by our own standards for implementation and usage, after which we did not buy into that technology.

When it comes to glassworkers using coloured enamels, I question whether the actual usage would have been influenced at all by any consultative representative, beyond confirmation of such things as working temperatures, coefficient of expansion etc.

As for comparisons of the way the enamels are worked in the Haden, Mullett & Haden examples, the Nazeing examples in Timberlake and the vase discussed here, I see no true similarity with the Haden, Mullett & Haden pieces. What I do see is a likeness in the "more cloudy style" of the vase discussed and the majority of the Nazeing equivalents in the book. For the H, M & H examples I see a "more delineated style" rather than "cloudiness" in the patterning. Even the blue vase on the right of Plate 31, page 50 in Timberlake, which has a "delineated" pattern still has "cloudiness" between the "delineated" parts.
KevinH


Offline nigel benson

  • Author
  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 1043
  • Gender: Male
  • British glass 1870-1980
    • British glass 1870-1980
    • http://www.20thcentury-glass.org.uk
Re: Monart? Gray-Stan?
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 08:24:20 PM »
I'm very much with Kevin here, although there was (and still is) the copying of work from company to company it seems to me most firms wish to have their own twist on things, so try to add something different, or extra, to their version.

Quote
I can't help wondering whether Elwell bought up their unsold stock and sold it with Elwell labels!

For all we know this could be true, indeed Elwell may even have odered work directly from HMH, but sadly we don't know, and wondering is only a red herring - unless of course it can lead us to a way of proving the possibility ;)

Occasionally, as a collector or dealer, regrets set in. For some time I have regreted not buying yet another piece of unknown glass for later identification. I had the opportunity three times to buy, what I now believe were pieces of HMH. Of course I don't know, and can't even prove it without at least one of them. I've been looking out for another ever since the black and white image from the P&GTG became available, but to no avail!

As for comparing the b/w image with either Timberlake images, or the real thing, I don't feel it is that easy. The b/w doesn't show enough detail for good comparison. Moreover, if I am right and I have seen pieces of unidentified HMH, I can assure you that the colour is laid in totally differently to any pieces of known Nazeing.

BTW, the image of the HMH on the bottom right is a different form/shape to the noticeably more squat vase in question in this thread. I would suggest if found in the same catalogue, by the same manufacturer, they would have different pattern numbers.

Nigel


 

Search
eBay.com
eBay.co.uk

Enter key words
Link to Glass Encyclopedia
Link to Glass Museum
Enter
key words
to search
Amazon.com