Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: flying free on June 19, 2011, 03:57:50 PM
-
I hope I'm listing this in the right section - I think this could be a Nazeing vase?
It is bright pink with some orange especially a layer of orange visible above the clear casing on the base. It has white swirls in it and on the interior you can feel the bubbles and texture. The base has a deep neat clear casing (not like my Nazeing bowl which is Elwell). The base is flat but not polished flat, rather than curving into the pontil mark as my bowl does. The pontil mark is polished beautifully. It's rather large at nearly 9 1/2" (23.5cm tall) and about 5 1/2" at widest (13.75cm). I'm assuming not Graystan as the base has the clear casing and I wasn't sure Gray Stan glass is cased? I have been through all pictures of both I can find, both on the net, here on the site and in my books and I can't match the shape :-\ to either. Weighs nearly 2kg or 4lb. I thought it must be Nazeing given the white, the bubbles, the swirls and the base?
any thoughts please? Nigel am I right this time ;D
many thanks :sun:
m
-
image on black
-
Simple answer - No!!
This doesn't match any known Nazeing shapes for the good reason that it is S&W/Royal Brierley.
Nigel
-
:thud: thank you Nigel for putting me out of my misery :). I would never have found that out in a year of looking. I'd been right through 20th Century British glass and nothing. And on relooking now, I didn't find any cloudy glass pics for Royal Brierley. Is it pre war please? I was presuming it was due to the nature of the design but possibly wrongly :-\
Many thanks again.
m
-
For Nigel -
I was searching for something and spotted this vase. I think it's possibly the same range/decor as my vase above but a different shape and didn't know if you'd seen it? It might not be but thought I'd link it just in case.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/390478946003?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
m
-
Good old Nige loves to let a lass down gently . ;D ;) :o ;)
-
:) but I've learnt so much from his posts and help that I can now spot my own Stevens and Williams ... well, most of the time ;D
m
-
When I posted this bowl a while ago I presumed Nazeing but was corrected by...have a guess? ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello,
Notice that the three pieces shown/linked to here are the same shapes as the Rainbow Ware range by S&W.........................
Nigel
-
hope m doesn't object too much if I piggy-back on this thread. :) Attached are pix of a green bowl (identified some while back by Nigel as SW/RB) - plus a vase of identical shape and dimensions to the original post here, and which matches the colourway/bubble construction of the bowl. Would therefore seem to be a very good chance both green pieces are SW/RB.
There appear to be consistent differences in bubbles and halos, between this factory and Nazeing, although I think there is a need to look at a few examples in order to 'get the eye in'. Of course it does help if it can be shown - as pointed out with the 'Rainbow' vase - that this was not a shape produced by Nazeing - but not quite so simple eliminating bowls, where many factories offered similar shapes - and this is where knowing your bubbles/halos and recognizing colourways is essential. Having looked at Geoff. Timberlake's book, I don't think this 'green' was a colourway offered by Nazeing, but that is my opinion only.
The bubbles and halos in these pix might be compared with the Nazeing material shown in current post in 'Glass' - although it seems there is perhaps some doubt that all shown there is Nazeing .... http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,50932.msg288557.html#msg288557
It's unfortunate that Charles Hajdamach's C20 book is quiet on some of this material, but guess we can't have everything in one book. :)
The logic of why the term 'Rainbow' escapes me - possibly the original range of colours offered was varied.
From the very few pieces of both factories that I've seen, I'm inclined to suggest that the ground/polished pontil depressions on SW/RB material might just be of a higher quality, larger and shinier than pieces from Nazeing - although as I say, I have only a very few items, so that is just a personal and speculative opinion. :)
I've tweaked the pix a little with Picasa, mostly to accentuate the halos and bubble areas, so the green has been distorted slightly - apologies.
-
Very pretty Paul!
With regards the range 'Rainbow' I think Nigel was just pointing out that they are the same shapes as the Rainbow range, not that these are called Rainbow.
I think the pink ones are 'cloudy and probably your green ones fall under that as well maybe? but they looks to be slightly different in that it is bubbles but not cloud and doesn't have white in it. It also looks slightly different in the way the colour is laid on but I'm probably wrong ;D
Perhaps S&W did a 'cloudy' and a 'bubbly' range?
Also are they S&W or Royal Brierley?
m
-
you're quite correct, I should read more carefully........."the same shapes as the Rainbow Ware range by S&W". Regret that I know almost nothing more about these pieces - they now fall outside of my interest area - they are left-overs from when I did collect this sort of material - sorry. :)
-
Hello again,
Paul, I'm a tad surprised that you didn't show pictures of the bases, in particular the way the pontils have been finished.................
Amazing how rare it is to find labels on any of these S&W/RB pieces as a way of pinning down the correct term. As so often, I'm afraid the only true way to find out is to research within the original archive ;) ??? However, I have to ask whether it matters too much since S&W was the owner of the RB name; indeed when you find a piece of marked Keith Murray glass both names are used!
Nigel
-
thanks Nigel :)
So is it correct to refer to them as Stevens and Williams, but not necessarily Royal Brierley unless they were produced after they changed the name?
m
-
m,
From memory, I seem to recall that S&W changed their trade name after a Royal visit in 1932 (?), so does that not complicate things as far as the discussion in hand goes? Or, you could say it makes it easier?????
Currently, there is not always a definitive answer I'm afraid.
Nigel
-
quote from Nigel......................"I'm a tad surprised that you didn't show pictures of the bases, in particular the way the pontils have been finished".................
I was going to Nigel, but at the last minute changed my mind partly as my sampling was very small, and partly because at the time I thought it more useful to show several pix of the bubbles and halos.
However, I will post some relevant pix later today, and people can then make up their own minds as to whether my comments were valid.
Perhaps someone else might do the same, and we'll have a comparison of 'bottoms' ;)
-
;D thanks Nigel. I knew it was some date that would mean it wasn't possible to really be sure about this range. Well,not unless we know what year it was produced and have the pattern books. No mention in 20th Century British Glass C Hajdemach - no mention in the STevens and Williams book (that seems to have a different start date for Caerleon btw - 1919 apparently first produced at their Lighting Glass Factory at Tipton - from the that in 20th Century British Glass C Hajdemach where it says that the first appearance in the pattern books of these was on 1 January 1929)
It does say make a comment in CH 20th Century British Glass though, page 110 under the Caerleon plate quote"Variations such as blue were introduced early in 1930 but after then no new Caerleon patterns appear in the pattern books and the emphasis moved to the stylish cut designs on black and green cased glass echoing the geometric Art Deco fashions)".
So is it possible the cloudy streaky range was produced prior to 1930?
m
-
Have one similar in green that I presumed to be S&W's
-
that does look a likely candidate for SW/RB Keith, although would have been good to see a clear bright pic of the pontil area as well.
Now attaching some pix of ground/polished pontil depressions, hoping that they show what I personally think of as typical characteristics of the individual factories. The green ones are SW/RB and the dull pink example is Nazeing.
I notice that my one and only piece of SW 'Alabaster' also has a large well polished pontil depression - perhaps more confirmation that the bottoms of Nazeing were not as well finished as SW. But, as I say, to feel sure that such a comment was valid then a large number of examples should be looked at. :)
-
all my Stevens and Williams pieces have had very large polished pontil marks if that helps :) regardless of range/design
m
-
QED then (perhaps) ;D
-
Paul I don't think your base pics attached to your post? Is it possible to post some please for reference?
many thanks
m
-
don't know why these were overlooked.
The pink one is Nazeing, and the pontil depression is noticeably matt. The green piece is S. & W. and shows a much more polished mark.
-
What you have to remember is that Nazeing did a lot of sub- contract work for other companies, ie Royal Brierely/ Stevens & Williams/ Dartington and Wegdwood Glass to name a few.
These companies would bring down their moulds and we would blow our glass into them.
So does this make the glass Nazeing or not? If it was sold by S&W or RB then it is theirs, as we have drawings / photos of most of our moulds of that period. Also coloured samples in our Museum.
The bubble technique looks like ours but the shaopes are definitely NOT ours as Nigel,says.
However my recent research proves that a lot of Victorian glass labeld S&W or RB was in fact Kempton glass, Nazeing's predecessor before the company moved out of Vauxhall.
I am doing an article for The Glass Circle about this as I have just bought 30 pieces of Kampton family owned glass and the recipe books. Many experts eg Cyril mMnley on Victorian Glass were mistaken and I have a letter from him shortly before he died, confessing he knew very little about "London made glass"!
-
Stephen sorry for the delay in responding, but I've been trying to get my head around your post and which pieces it refers to, as well as looking at the glass in question more closely.
From what you say, I have understood that you were referring to the green vase (and possibly the plate) posted by Paul and also the green vase posted by Keith. Are you therefore suggesting that these three green pieces are S&W/RB shapes but were blown at Nazeing using Nazeing bubble decor, but were S&W/RB shapes and therefore sold as S&W/RB by them?
thanks for taking the time to explain and add to the thread :)
m
-
my thanks also to Stephen for his very useful information.
The following maybe removed if it's considered out of place here, but found this small blue, clear handled, posy vase this morning and thought a pic or two - especially showing what appears to be a snapped pontil - might be of interest.
Geoff. Timberlake comments in his book ('A Celebration of Nazeing Glass Works 1928 - 2003' - page 57), that - "This does not work as well as a design which may explain why so few examples of this style are known"
This posy bowl is seen quite commonly at boot fairs etc., but without the handles, usually, and must admit this is the first I've found with handles.
Presumably this smallish snapped rough pontil scar remained unpolished in view of the slightly concave base - which avoids any scratching of surfaces etc. - and saved spending additional time on an otherwise low value item.
Does this date to the 1950's or is it later?
-
Paul,
This is definately nazeing, we have other examples in the Museum in a variety of colours. My guess is that uit is late 1940;s early Fifties, as I did not see them being made in 1956 when I first worked here.
It looks like a vomit bowl to me! (Just Google vomit bowls now disposable of cardboard and you will see what I mean.......)
I wonder if the Romans used something siliar in the vomitoriums ?
I suppose posy bowls went out of fashion when the single stem rose/orchid/gerbera etc replaced them
-
Hi Stephen, did you see my post above Paul's please?
I was just wondering about which vases you were referring to when you talked about blown at Nazeing using S&W molds and whether you felt Paul's green vases related to that?
Thanks
m
-
m (Flying Free),
Both green and purple bubble vases of S&W/ RB shapes have been found that are not our moulds but look like our colour glass and bubble effect.
Also earlier Kempton glass circa 1890 has mistakenly been named as S&W when the shapes are shown in kempton's catalogues.
Don't forget that both Colonel Reggie Williams-Thomas and Malcolm Pollock-Hill (owners) were friends and colleagues as members of THe Glass Manufacturer's Federation, ( my father was president in 1968 & 1969). We did ( confidentially) subcontract work for many glass companies including Dartington Glass & Wedgwood Crystal, but the designs were theirs.
Suggest you visit our Museum, FF?
-
Hi Stephen
Thanks so much for coming back to the thread :)
That is very interesting (I have little idea of S&W really,just the pieces I recognise and the ones I own).
Is it not possible that S&W also used a bubble variant that looked the same as Nazeing? Or has it been firmly established that Nazeing blew glass for S&W/RB using S&W molds?
I don't know anything about Kempton glass. Are catalogues the same as Pattern Books? If something is in a Catalogue would that mean it was definitely by that maker?
I would love to visit your museum, but unfortunately I am right over the other side of the country. If it were on my doorstep or nearer, I would be a frequent visitor absolutely :)
many thanks again
m
-
M (FF) Different fglass companies have differet recipes, and the bubbles are formed by the chemicals in teh glass.
We KNOW that nazeing made glass for S&W- it is an established fact not a hypothese!
the glass colour and bubble formation are idential to confirmed NGW pieces-just teh mould patterns are not.
If a manufacturer takes a full pages in Pottery and Tableware Gazette showing his designs, in 1887,
and a later author shows a photo of that design but attributes it to "possible Stevens and Williams" and admits in writing that "I know nothiong of the London factories of thsi date"...
It is not too incredible to suggest they were in fact made by Kemptons! I now have traced a S&W trumpet vase and it is very different!
My article in the Glass Circle magaizine, next year, aims to establish it without a shadow of a doubt.
-
Thanks Stephen. So when buying pieces, it's very important to be aware of the decors and not just the shapes, to ensure one knows where they were blown.
I think there are errors in the Cyril Manley book on Victorian Glass regarding Richardson's as well. Presumably at that time the author did not have access to the amount of literature and information we have now so perhaps assumptions were made that have now turned out to be inaccurate. Unfortunately, these things persist and become 'facts' that take a long time to undo.
m
-
We KNOW that nazeing made glass for S&W- it is an established fact not a hypothese!
It is also true to say that S&W made items specifically for Elwell as shown in the Description Books held at Broadfild House Glass Museum. The colours made by S&W go under the names of: May Green, Mulberry and Puce. The first two are Nazeing names, the third not. Elwell is known to have bought from a number of British companies directly - Gray-Stan, Nazeing, Stevens & Williams, Thomas Webb are certain and were augmented with glass from Czechoslovakia that we know of.
Cyril Manley has often been debuncked since the books' reprinting. Most of it followed on an earlier, American comb-bound publication, which read as if you were looking through Manley's own notebook with his thoughts about who had made each item - but without proof. The classic mistaking WMF as Ikora was my first insight into this - so you're pushing at an open door where Manley is concerned.
However, where it is noted that items were made for 'Elwell' in the S&W's 1930's Description Books, there is no mention of Nazeing, so I begin to part comapany with you I'm afraid Stephen :( These 1930's pieces have very different characteristics to those of Nazeing Glass Works in my experience, which is why we were able to take them out of the Nazeing Room in The Museum of British Domestic Glass and put them in their rightful place - under S&W. The decor/internal decoration does not match that of Nazeing, particularly with the Mulberry, which actually gives a nod to monart with its propencity to have 'larger' granules of colour that form 'pebbles' of colour within the casing. They are heavier, with thicker walls, and the pontils are far more confident that the finishing achieved at Nazeing. The colouring in the Puce items is greatly different from the equivalent pieces known to be Nazeing.
As for the Kempton work being given S&W status, I came up against that problem when trying to borrow from collectors for the Nazeing Glass and It's Origins exhibition that we held at Lowewood Mueseum back in 2003. The Trumpet vase was aparticular bone of contention, with the number of ribs being quoted as a S&W characteristic by their protagonists, however they are there to see in a Kempton advert that Geoff Timberlake discovered in The Pottery and Glass Trade Gazette.
However, while researching other companies and looking at family collections I have found items that were definately by other manufacturers, such as the supposedly piece of 'Hailware' (by Hailwood & Ackroyd, of Leeds) that was marked 'Pyrex' in the Hailwood family collection. Things can get mixed up and re-attributed within families over a great number of years :o :( Back up information is essentual if you're not going to have someone come out of the woodwork and contradict you after you've published. Yet, there's always the maxim of be the first to publish and those who follow build on your work ;) :)
Don't know whether that helps? (Or even whether I've made an enemy - I hope not !!)
Nigel