Topic: Miniature wavy rim vase - Whitefriars ? ID help please

[nigelbenson]

Hi Scott,

which incidentally has had its identity confirmed ( my previous post).

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something, as I didn't see that as conclusive. So, who are you saying made this little piece please?

Thanks, Nigel

[Paul S.]

always dangerous to presume to understand someone else's thoughts, but................... 

I think what Scott is saying Nigel is that..........    the colour of this wavy rimmed miniature vase appears to be the same as the colour of his W/Fs Wave Ribbed Vase - which has already been confirmed as W/Fs in another recent thread      .........   therefore by deduction this miniature might have been assumed to be W/Fs also - based on the colour alone.
Bit like saying all Sparrows are birds - all sparrows have wings, therefore all birds with wings are sparrows.

As has been suggested, however, there have been houses - some of which you've named - who used a similar colour and probably similar frilly rims.          Sometimes there's just too much of wanting something to be what you might wish, rather than concentrating on the facts alone.

Of course, I could be wrong with my interpretation.

[nigelbenson]

Thank you Paul. Might you know where the other thread is by any chance?

I like your analogy about the sparrows - very apt

Cheers, Nigel

[Paul S.]

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,64121.0.html

yes, syllogisms can be fun.

[nigelbenson]

Oh, I see. It's all to do with colour.

A dangerous assumption - one characteristic in common making those items by the same maker! No where near enough information creating a link between the two IMHO.

Scot, I draw your attention to a credo that I've shared on these pages before:

If an item has three characteristics that say that it doesn't agree with known characteristics by that maker (ie. the one you're comparing it to), then it isn't by the same maker. Conversely, if there are three characteristics that are the same it is probably by the same maker.

I used to say three in common meant that it was by the same maker, BUT, I caught myself out over a few items, so I now say probably.

This is a good safeguard to making erroneous assumptions based on too little information and the hope, or wish, that an item is something that it ain't. We all get caught out from time to time, but questioning attribution is a very good habit for any collector to do - and a must for any dealer. Oh, and we all hope something might be better than it actually is - no matter how long we've been collecting, or even dealing!

Whatever it is, your piece is aesthetically very pleasing and a nice find.

Kind wishes, Nigel

[flying free]

Scott it's always difficult to see colour on monitors but I seem to think that the small bowl has a hint more blue to it. 
It 'appears' to my eye to be very slightly different to the Stuart which is more green green and again to what I think I've seen of Stevens and Williams green which has a slight grey tint to the green.

But colour might only be the first port of call ... as Nigel says, then you have to check the rest

I'm curious about the finish - is it slightly iridescent or is that just the photo and the glass is just very shiny?
and does it 'ting' when you flick the rim?  is it very fine? probably not because of the size perhaps.

And I would say based on the size, that it was probably a salt.


m

[Scott13]

Hi m,
They look essentially the same to me - but colours aren't my forte.
If you can see a hint of blue then I'm sure there is a hint of blue.

Can we go to the easy part now ? 

There's no iridescence and the glass is very shiny.
When flicked the glass does give out a high pitched 'ting'.
Its been very finely made, the body is slightly ribbed ( if that's the right description) and the pontil mark is perfectly circular.
I never thought of a salt..........

Many thanks for your interest 

Scott

[flying free]

as I say on a monitor it can be quite difficult to tell if they are very close so I could be completely wrong.

I was just curious because as Nigel has mentioned names, many of them did some form of dark green.

I always like to have just a little bit more info than the picture on it's own as it helps me to build a picture in my head

It's very tiny, I would assume made as a salt yes.  I have a Thomas Webb (definitely) salt, it is 6cm diameter and 3.5cm to the top of the highest pull on the fluted rim.  It has a fluted rim like yours - mine has 8 pulls down to form the rim flutes.  Yours also.  Mine is a very similar shape to yours but has been blown into a different mold.  It also isn't as 'wide' in the body as yours is in profile pictures.
m

[Scott13]

Hi m,
They seem to have a lot in common - feel as if things are moving in the right direction now.
Now it's up to me.
And yes, definitely a salt

Many thanks

Scott

[Paul S.]

quote ..................    "And yes, definitely a salt"    ............     not so sure we have the evidence to be that certain of its intended use.

the bulbous profile and frilly rim are not what would normally be expected on a salt  -  sorry to be troublesome but my own humble opinion is that this was intended as a small posy vase  -  it just looks too fancy, and lacks any sort of utility appearance, for a salt  -  but as I say, just my opinion:)

m - do you have evidence to support your T/Webb piece as being categorically a salt.