Topic: Victorian Uranium & Cranberry Glass Globlet Shaped Vase

[Paul S.]

everyone to their opinion, but I'd suggest that preferring aesthetics over provenance does appear deny our naturally inquisitive nature to want to know who made what, when and even, sometimes, how

Pieces like Roy's Globlet, are simply beautiful, but just imagine how much more interesting a piece becomes when we can know the maker and his process - and I'm not aware of any books that show beautiful glass without any attributions.          It's also why many of us have in excess of 100 books - so that we can provide answers to those members who post unidentified glass requesting a maker, and there are a lot of requests.         History becomes very real when we can fill in the gaps, and do I take it then that no one is interested in the data that comes out of Kew anymore
And just think of the difference in value that might occur with some pieces  ....    a real Lalique fetches hundreds if not thousands - but a wannabee a lot less

None of which lessens the beauty of Roy's goblet, but I for one would love to know who made it

The tulip design looks very nouveau (1880 - 1915 ish) - am I right in saying that???

[chopin-liszt]

There are many occasions where I prefer not to know the maker - bits which are signed can cost a lot more than bits which aren't, and as Paul has just pointed out, just the name Lalique on its own causes some folk to empty their wallets.
Not me.
I prefer Barolac and Jobling opalescent glass to Lalique any day anyway, but that's by-the-by.
I don't "get" the fuss about it at all.
Names can cause ridiculous and unfounded price hikes and that keeps beautiful glass away from me.
Not a situation of which I approve!

[KevinH]

Paul S asked:

The tulip design looks very nouveau (1880 - 1915 ish) - am I right in saying that???

Yes, spot on! The Richardson company revived cameo products in the late 1920s. I understand this to have been more of a revival of the general art form, rather than the delicate and precise detail of the late 19th century. The 1920s versions of cameo were what Richardsons called "cameo-fleur". And then in 1930 Webb took over the company and continued the range but used their own "Webb" mark.

The "aesthetics over provenance" points would make a good topic for discussion in a separate message. Maybe in the Cafe? Whilst I agree with Roy on the basic issue about "beauty vs maker", I also agree with Paul about the importance of provenance. To me they are two different issues that have their own satisfactions.

[chopin-liszt]

Unless they're the same issue, 
when you find something fabby, then spend years searching before you do discover that it has a highly desirable "provenance". But you've paid a decent price because you love it, not an astronomical one, artificially hiked by "provenance".

[Paul S.]

as I'm sure Kevin appreciated, I was being contentious deliberately, hoping that folk might feel strongly enough to comment one way or the other.

Unfortunately, it didn't really work.

[chopin-liszt]

I feel, quite strongly, that aesthetics should win every time.
Even the best artists have bad days and can produce bad work with nothing aesthetic to redeem it, but some folk will still pay silly money for the name.

I knew you were baiting us, Paul.

[flying free]

That's really beautiful
For some strange reason, whenever I see that rim it always makes me think Webb.  I can't say definitely why but something to do with the way it is crimped and the shape of each of the curves on the crimp.  But if it were mine that would be my starting point for looking. 
Not sure the pontil mark fits entirely with Webb but I'm sure there has been discussion previously re some pieces with snapped off pontil marks.
m

[Lustrousstone]

I hadn't noticed the snapped off pontil mark. Never found it on Webb but it's common on Walsh feet. The crimp and the pontil mark remind me of my uranium Mills and Walker basket http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=928

[flying free]

The shape does very much.  I'm not sure about the crimp being similar though?  There is something specific about the crimp on the OP's piece.   Each curve finishes very precisely with a down push between each one ... it's not undulating at all really. 

Just for reference, there is a piece in Gulliver's page 14 that is part shown with a similar rim to OP's (8 way crimp not 12 way though) and has a diamond opalescence on the pink glass as a pattern.  Do you think it has similarities?
m