Topic: Salvador or Paul Ysart inkwell?

[millarart]

My question would be "was he gifted the whole of this collection on retirement" - it seems quite a lot to be gifted - or was SOME of it a retirement gift and other parts collected by him over time?

As we all know, stories about grandads / grandmas things can often be a part of the truth, but not necessarily the absolute truth!

Just to add - whoever made it it is a lovely thing, and I thought one of the nicest pieces from the auction 

mmmm funny I said the same thing to someone the other day that theres no way he was presented with all these pieces at one time and several being same shape and similar colourways etc

[orangeglass]

Mmmm , strange that Mr Millar........

Said it was one if the nicest pieces though whenever Salvador (most probably) made it!

[millarart]

 

[Gary]

 

. One main problem we have is that inkwells never appeared in the Monart catalogues, although they were clearly based on shapes of one or two Monart scent bottles.

I believe you are wrong Kevin in your view that Monart did not have a catalogued inkwell shape.
Shape T in the Monart catalogue is in my opinion  an inkwell, I agree is is difficult to tell from the image in the Monart catalogue, if it is a scent bottle or an inkwell.
The link below shows what in opinion is a Monart shape T.

http://www.weights-n-things.com/en/archive/modern-paperweights/europe/ysart-paul/onion-spire-inkwell-py-cane.html
Gary

[KevinH]

Thanks Gary. You may be correct. What we need is confirmation from somebody (or several somebodies) with a confirmed shape T bottle.

I think the deciding factor is whether the body of a bottle is fully hollow or if it has a small "well" below the neck and solid glass (with or without internal decoration) below the "well". If it is fully hollow, then I think it would be for scent. If it has a "well" section, it would be an inkwell.

I believe the criteria of "hollow or not" could, and should, be applied to any Moncrieff catalogue bottle of shapes: T, VB, WB, HE, IE, RE, PF, ZG, KH, SI and EJ.

[Gary]

Thanks Gary. You may be correct. What we need is confirmation from somebody (or several somebodies) with a confirmed shape T bottle.

I think the deciding factor is whether the body of a bottle is fully hollow or if it has a small "well" below the neck and solid glass (with or without internal decoration) below the "well". If it is fully hollow, then I think it would be for scent. If it has a "well" section, it would be an inkwell.

I believe the criteria of "hollow or not" could, and should, be applied to any Moncrieff catalogue bottle of shapes: T, VB, WB, HE, IE, RE, PF, ZG, KH, SI and EJ.

I am of the opinion the ink bottle discussed in this thread (link below) is a Monart shape T. Without a Monart label with a shape code it would be difficult confirm 100% the shape.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,47603.msg268031.html#msg268031

I agree with your parameters of defining an inkwell bottle and scent bottle.
On the shapes you mention, shape T has a "well" therefore an ink bottle. Shapes VB,WB, KH, SI, EJ, and ZG are unclear from the images in the Monart catalogue wether they are inkwells or scent bottles.
Shapes PF, HE and IE are hollow and are scent bottles.
Gary

[paperweights]

I'm puzzled by the discussion above.  I look at the stopper when deciding if I have a scent or an inkwell.  A short stopper goes with an inkwell, an elongated stopper is a scent bottle.  Further, I would expect the capacity of a scent to be smaller, but that is not always the case.  You could also consider the design.  A floral design lends itself to a scent.

Just another opinion.  I realize the glass makers themselves may have labeled them differently.

[Gary]

I'm puzzled by the discussion above.  I look at the stopper when deciding if I have a scent or an inkwell.  A short stopper goes with an inkwell, an elongated stopper is a scent bottle.  Further, I would expect the capacity of a scent to be smaller, but that is not always the case.  You could also consider the design.  A floral design lends itself to a scent.

Just another opinion.  I realize the glass makers themselves may have labeled them differently.

All my comments in this thread have and are related to Ysart inkwells or scent bottles.
I look it from a different angle, I look at the capacity the item can hold to decide if it is an inkwell or scent bottle.
The capacity of a scent bottle is invariably larger.
Could you explain why the shape of the stopper determines if it is a scent bottle or an inkwell.
See photos below.
The first image is a scent bottle and the second is an inkwell.
 

[tropdevin]

***

Did anyone really use these bottles for ink or scent?  I doubt it very much.  Surely the names are just notional, and so you call them what you wish?

Alan

[KevinH]

Allan's thought was:

A short stopper goes with an inkwell, an elongated stopper is a scent bottle.

An "elongated" (pointed) stopper was used in all of the (few) PY example inkwells I have seen that look like the "Shape T" bottle in the catalogues. The body of those PY bottles all had a regular millefiori ground and a small well section below the neck.

Gary confirmed:

... shape T has a "well" therefore an ink bottle

Thanks Gary. When I looked at the two copies of catalogues that were sold in an auction near me a while ago, I did not note the "well" section in the shape T item - hence my point about having not seen any confirmed evidence of pre-war inkwells.

And I have noted that, in the catalogue details, shapes VB and EJ are the only others that are shown with an elongated stopper, but their body shapes strongly suggest being hollow blown. So, unless the elongated stoppers were sometimes used in other bottle shapes, I am left with just shape T as the evidence of a pre-war inkwell.

I guess I really should check my research copy photos and make a note of the canes used in those shape T bottles!