Thanks Nemmie

and Sue, thank you and glad you like it

It's possible the bridge was where the sides 'stuck' together inside but it is also possible I suppose, that it was 'poked' to make the bridge.
Looking carefully at it, it looks as though the interior was clear ( I can tell as the 'bridge' link is clear with chlorides in it), then with the chlorides put on which surround the internal blob in swirls as though it was whirled around to swirl the chlories, then the whole was cased in the thick cobalt blue and then the clear side stripes put on - the side stripes have some chlorides in them as well which makes them have a very pale greeny yellowy tinge.
The cobalt colour isn't diluted at all as the vase is ink midnight blue without any light through it.
I purposefully took the photos with strong lighting to show the colours inside the vase but
the outside is very deep dark cobalt blue. I've popped it on a shelf at the moment and with light on the front of it but none through it, it looks nearly black.
Sorry to ramble on, I've just realised did you mean yours looks like diluted cobalt used for the casing?
re the date of the cobalt, was it speculation in M Hill's book then about it being used in the first year of production?
he is very clear in saying cobalt and amethyst in their unmodified form were only used as final colours in for a short period of time in the first year of production.
I would say that the cobalt on my vase
is in unmodified form ... i.e. it hasn't been mixed/modified by adding anything else to the cobalt, but was used as plain cobalt to case a 'clear coated with silver chlorides' interior.
I can understand that it could also be describing a piece such as John's cobalt fish which has no other colour in it all other than one under layer of cobalt and then cased over with the wings made of another layer of cobalt.
The alternative to 'unmodified' cobalt would be that the cobalt was mixed with something else to provide other colours perhaps?
m