Topic: Confirmation that this is a Murano Fish, please!

[Bernard C]

... won joint first prize in a competition for friggers organised by The British Glass Manufacturers Federation. ...

Apologies for my English.   It was the competition that was organised by The British Glass Manufacturers Federation, not the friggers!   ... which rather neatly brings me on to the question: "What is a frigger?"

I always understood a frigger to be anything from the equivalent of a pencilled doodle to a one-off made to swap for the beer consumed on the way home.   Once it became a production item, it stopped being a frigger.

What is the authoritative chapter and verse on this question?

Bernard C. 

[Frank]

Searching on the board brings up lots of discussion on frigger and there is consistency in general with what you say above but I also found an intriguing example of a standard production piece possible being classed as a figger, because it was made during wartime restrictions 

No it was not experimental but a standard piece made at the time of wartime restictions on the manufacture of decorative glassware. So it is a slightly illegal frigger as Monart was not officially in production.

The making of friggers was not discouraged because it allowed glassworkers to improve their skills, and clearly, i.e. Whitefriars Ducks, it could also produce ideas that the factory could use as a product.

Possibly best discussion of friggers: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,2327.msg17039.html#msg17039
so aka Whimsy, End-of-day

[aa]

The tail is a split continuation of the body, retaining the body colours, rather than an applied tail.   Bernard C. 

Perhaps I can expand on this for clarification purposes. The tail was split by cutting into it with shears and that is why what John described as a "join" can remain rough if it is not fire polished sufficiently.

[David E]

What is the authoritative chapter and verse on this question?

I actually started a new thread on this subject, to avoid trampling through this one (ho, hum):
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,9315.0.html

In the third para. I mention a series of articles that I will photo next time I go to Himley Hall. This would give an earlier (1950s) definition of the term that might prove useful.

[johnfandmaryp]

Thanks for that clarification aa ~ much appreciated!

David ~ further clarification please! I understood from Bernard's original response that this item would have been sold wholesale but you seem to be implying in your 'new' post that it's a frigger which, by definition (if one can be agreed , wouldn't be a mass produced item. Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Thanks, John.

[Lustrousstone]

Ithink David's saying that it was a production piece but that the Nazeing fish had its orgins in a frigger

[johnfandmaryp]

That would make sense ~ Thanks, Christine.

[sph@ngw]

Yes Murano! No not Nazeing. Nazeing fish never had an upturned tail and the lips are not so exaggerated. I can be quite sure of this as we have both the drawing from the Davidson catalogue and the photos of Achille Ducarreau.the Belgium craftsman teaching youngsters to make a fish!

[johnfandmaryp]

Ahhhh 

[nigel benson]

Hello All,

Thank goodness for Stephen's reply!!

Both the photo of a Nazeing fish that I have, and the drawing in Geoff Timberlake's book, show that the lips of a Nazeing fish are pulled out from the body of the glass, whereas, most other examples, including the one that started this thread, have an extra piece/trail of glass shaped over the opening to make the lips. More often than not this is clear glass. The effect is to make it look more like a beak, although maybe a little rounded at the end.

The second major difference that I see is that there are two pairs of fins used to balance the fish on with the tail held clear above the display area - although this is difficult to visualise on the drawing, once you know, you realise that there is an angle to the one shown at the back, whilst it is not possible to show/see its pair. Even if it were one fin at the back, the tail would be held higher than the surface the fish sits upon.

Lastly, the positioning of the fin near the eye is crucial. On the example shown it is both wrong, and too small - again, see the drawing shown in Geoff's book.

Interestingly, both the fish and the horse shown in my reference are referred to as "Statuettes, or in a another language, as "Figurines" - not friggers.

The only question I have is that the reference I have spells the glass blower as Achille Ducarreaux - with an "x" at the end. Can you say which is correct Stephen, or does it depend on the language it's printed in?

Nigel