Topic: English inkwell - Whitefriars?

[tropdevin]

***

This is an unusual inkwell, I think. The canes are very like those found in the Whitefriars 1951 Triplex and 1953 EIIR weights. I have a very similar inkwell, but mine has a row of Whitefriars style canes centred by '7/6' shapes - maybe because Walsh Walsh workers moved to Whitefriars when Walsh Walsh closed in 1950. It also has heart canes like those found in Whitefriars weights.  My guess is that the eBay inkwell is a Whitefriars piece from around 1950. Anyone else seen one of this design?

Alan

[Roger H]

      Although some canes would seem to signify whitefriars and the colours also. Have you seen the cane that looks like a 4 petaled flower before anywhere? Yes mid 20th century.

[petern00]

Okay, the auction has finished.  As Alan notes the colours point to Whitefriars rather than one of the other contenders and yet there's something - that I can't quite put my finger on - about the cane structure that doesn't quite ring true(?), at least in comparison with other '50's weights that I can examine closely. Is Roy watching?  Peter

[jamalpa36]

Hi Peter

My view is that this is a Walsh-Walsh Bottle and I cannot see any obvious Whitefriars canes.

Having said that I will now go and look at the Magic Box

These actions could be the wrong way round !!!!

Roy

[jamalpa36]

Hi All

I believe I can match the centre cane with my Walsh-Walsh canes and I certainly do not have any Whitefriars canes that match this bottle.

Roy

[petern00]

Thanks Roy.  For my money that makes it Walsh-Walsh. 

That 'Magic Box' of your's is a wondrous thing; a great reference point for so many of our Whitefriars & 'old English' ID questions.  Thanks for sharing it with us.

Peter

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Roy

I recall having a very similar discussion with you a few years ago when I first got my bottle, and we found some near identical canes to those in mine in some EIIR weights. I still feel this is from the period when Walsh Walsh closed, and Whitefriars began to rekindled their paperweight production - ie 1950 -1953.  I'll search through my many thousands of images when time permits and see if I can find any relevant ones.

Alan

[jamalpa36]

Hi Alan

You may well be right but then if a Walsh-Walsh worker makes a Bottle with Walsh -Walsh canes using a Whitefriars Pot & chair does that make it a Whitefriars bottle?

 :ho: :ho: :ho:

Roy

PS Does the base look Whitefriars?

[tropdevin]

***

Hi Roy.

Good question! I suppose that if an item emerges from the Whitefriars factory, with Whitefriars label, sold by Whitefriars, then it would legally be a Whitefriars piece. But as you say, what if it was made by an ex-Walsh Walsh worker, using Walsh Walsh canes...a purist would feel the parentage was Walsh Walsh, no doubt.

I think there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that Whitefriars used Walsh Walsh canes - or at least Walsh Walsh workers to make their canes - in the early 1950s.  The image below shows (left and middle columns) close-ups of four canes from Whitefriars EIIR paperweights, and canes from later Whitefriars paperweights on the right, which are quite distinct in design. The red cane top left and one ring in the bottle we were debating are very similar, and are surely from the same source. The bottom left and centre canes clearly owe much to the Walsh Walsh '7/6' cane process (of folding two colours of glass together to get the design), yet appear in a Whitefriars paperweight. I suspect these bottles were made at Whitefriars, quite possibly by ex Walsh Walsh workers who used some Walsh Walsh canes in them, and maybe before the 1951 paperweights.

The base of my bottle has a thin foot rim, and is polished concave - but as it is not a paperweight, and is probably an early piece, that is not too surprising. I wish these people had kept better records!

Alan

[petern00]

This thread's discussion about the migration of Walsh-Walsh workers and canes to Whitefriars in the early 1950s has been informative and raised several scenarios that make the hunt for provenance much more interesting than a 'simple(?)' attribution to one or other factory. 

The questions posed by Roy about what products belong to whom under different scenarios have relatively straight forward answers under Australian Industrial & IP law (which probably mirror those in Britain).  Products deriving from employment are deemed solely the property of the employer - e.g. made in the Whitefriars factory by employees during their regular hours  - unless there is an agreement to the contrary.  The latter would cover the practice that appears to have been relatively common whereby glass workers were allowed/encouraged to make 'friggers' in their 'spare' time.  If it came to a dispute, these items would be the ruled as property of the workers.

In relation to the bottle that started this thread, a picture of the base is attached.  It is smooth and concave with no sign of the 'button' often ascribed (although not unique?) to Whitefriars' weights.  The bottle's diameter is 85mm at it's widest point - viz. the base, tapering thereafter - and height (with stopper) 145mm.  The base profile image shows a small foot. But for the number of concentric rows, the set-up and canes in base and stopper are matching. 

Re-reading the chapters 'Inkwells' and 'Unknown makers' in Robert Hall's 'Old English Paperweights' - looking for profile descriptions and/or canes resembling those of the current bottle - I'm reminded of how much isn't known about so many things. As Alan bemoans (with some licence on my part) "Oh that there might have been better records kept!'  Sophie Boyron's article in the November 2010 PCC Newsletter talked about 'the erosion of information' and the importance of efforts to preserve what information remains (e.g. the 'Scotland's Glass' website).  Arguably as current day collectors we all share the responsibilities of stewardship to preserve what information we can.

Roy has matched the central cane of this bottle with his Walsh-Walsh collection. The hunt goes on in relation to the other canes used.  Any matches will improve the probability of an accurate attribution. .. Or will it at the end of the day be put into that 'unknown makers'-box which, I suspect, is fuller than we'd like to think.

Peter