Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Unresolved Glass Queries => Topic started by: bfg on January 16, 2013, 03:06:01 PM
-
Hi all, belated happy new year :)
I've been mulling this one over for a while - whilst browsing my Manley 'Decorative Victorian Glass' I noticed a similar vase on pg 54, pic 11 atributed to Richardson and described as alabaster
I only say similar - mine has a hand painted classical silhouette and bands of greek keys and waves in similar positions on the vase.
Mine however is Matte on the exterior and shiny inside and it has had a rough life with a lot of wear to the painting particularly to the rim & foot but Manley also comments on the unusual heaviness of the piece and that was one of my first comments when I lifted it. It 'feels' old if you know what I mean.
Height is 12 inches and foot is 4 inches across. weighs 30 oz (850g)
Am I way off and wishfully thinking? any comments welcome as usual
lots of pics so prob in two hits, cheers
Mel
-
more pics..............
-
Hello Mel,Happy New Year,very nice vase,I always thought these were Richardsons but there has been some debate recently as to similar vases from Bohemia,I'm still unsure of mine ::) ;D ;D
-
Hi Keith, yes I read the thread(s) with interest back end of last year and still didn't twig, perhaps because the ones shown are colour and not b/w!
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,48475.msg273260.html#msg273260
love your vase too btw :D
I suppose the trouble is research is always ongoing and my copy of Manley is 30 years old!
cheers, Mel
-
Further reading shows that Richardson's pieces of this type were left matte on the outside to allow for easier handpainting - but again from the same 30yr old source so Im not convinced yet
but despite not being able to firmly attribute this to either Richardson or a Bohemian company would anyone disagree to dating it at mid 19th century?
cheers
Mel
-
hi Mel
lovely vase - I like it a lot. The black only on white looks very classy.
Is it possible to get a close up of the white glass against light please? , what is the internal texture of the glass itself? is it slightly translucent white glass or thick opaque white glass?
It would really help a lot if your photos enlarged so the pics can be seen clearly :)
If you search ebay there are a pair of Richardson's vitrified glass vases for sale - the seller Chrisbuckman has done some really excellent shots of the glass to compare.
I wouldn't use Manley on it's own as a source of identification because it was written so long ago and more information has come to light since then. Best to use it in conjunction with other info as it becomes available I think? Do you have CH's British Glass the one for the 1900's?
Link to signed Richardsons vitrified pair of vases here - gorgeous, if I could afford them.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pair-Victorian-Antique-Richardsons-Vitrified-Glass-Enamel-Spill-Vases-c-1860-/310397119888?pt=UK_Art_Glass&hash=item48451c2d90
m
-
thanks m, I'm growing fonder of it by the day ;D
to answer your questions: no only got CH's 20th century one and will have to wait a while as just ordered the walsh walsh one to check out a poss pompeian vase (another story lol)
added some more pics - they usually blow up ok don't know what I did there ::)
I would describe the inside shiny texture as pyrex-like, very shiny no bubbles, with only a very faint orange glow in direct strong light see last pic
love Chris's vitrified pair mine seems quite clumpy in decoration compared to the delicate almost line drawings on the spill vases
with a lot of wishful thinking I could almost convince myself the black line in the ground pontil mark is the last remnant of a R/sons stamp, like Chris's, almost, lol ;D
cheers, Mel
-
thanks ;) you need to reduce your pics to about 600 x 400 and then they do blow up to a size which is possible to see the details usually. A close up of the lady would be lovely.
It looks opaline to me. Different to the vitrified glass effect. If yours is English I think it possibly dates to around 1850. If Bohemian then maybe a bit later. I'll check CH's book in mo and come back to you - kids at home today, 3" snow and we're snowed in and all schools closed ::)
Opaline is a discussion for another day lol, I'm currently gathering references and sources on the definition of it.
m
-
thanks for offering to check in your book m, much appreciated. Just started snowing here about an hr ago dont know if it will come to anything. keep warm :)
-
well, it's a minuscule thing, but I thought quite exciting ;D
on page 138 of CH British Glass 1800-1914 in a plate 103 which is a copy of 'pages from the Art-Union magazine, June 1847, showing Etruscan glasses (my words here...by 'glasses' they mean glass and in fact the pictures are of vases and jugs plus one bowl and one goblet) decorated by Mr Giller using Webb blanks.', all the pieces have the same curly 'wave' type swirls on them as your vase does!
Still checking for finer details to see if I can spot any more matches. And of course, many decorators could have done the swirls, but none the less they look the same as yours - someone care to double check for me please?
m
-
see post above
and also
the one on the top left of the picture has the greek key design like yours though it is interspersed it seems by a square of different decor intermittently and it also has the u shaped curves with black bands above and below. It also has the exact same 'wave' design as your right round the top of the rim and also around the edge of the foot as yours does.
Indeed, I would say it might be good for you to investigate work by Mr Giller on Etruscan vases for Webb. That would be my starting point and I think there is a good chance that is where your vase might originate. But can't say for sure of course :) as these are design devices that might easily be copied. The vases seem to all be in a similar vein to yours though, white, quite finely done in design of the shapes and finish and two pieces seems to have a swirl like yours, that seems to curl away from the main picture - like a bit of extra decor on the body of the vase.
It's a definite possible I'd say.
I might have the originals of those Art pages somewhere in my files, I've got some I know. I'll have a scout through and see if it's those pages then I might be able to read what was said.
Please could we have a larger close up pic of the decoration on your vase, both top rim, bottom again and all the picture round the vase?
Many thanks :)
m
-
wow m, you've been busy thank you. I will get my other half to use his camera this eve and get some better pics for you.
thank you for taking the time to look up the references for me
will get some more pics uploaded soon
cheers, Mel
-
Amazingly I do have the original pages from the Art-Union :o
I will add some further info in exchange for lovely big clear pics of the decoration ;D
m
-
you're on! ;D
-
If you look at plate 105 in Hajdamach's book on 19th century British glass you will see a black on white design attributed to Molineaux Webb. The shape of vase is a bit different and no Greek Key, but it does indicate these cannot all be attributed to Stourbridge firms if English.
-
Neil hi, I did look at that one first because it has a vaguely similar shape to Mel's.
There are lots of different makers for these vases.
I could be wrong but I feel Mel's is most probably a Webb blank decorated by Mr Giller if CH's reference is correct.
I also own one of these Etruscan vases and it was made by Harrach.
I have the original Art-Union magazine pages of this article that has been reprinted and have been able to read the descriptions of the vases as well. There is something particular in the description that I believe also ties Mel's vase to this group :0 but I'm not divulging until we get more pics lol.
The one thing that is slightly different in Mel's vase is the picture. The ones in the article are less 'free-hand painted' looking, and more stylised and they all look as though they have sgraffito decoration on them. Hence my asking for better pics.
m
-
testing........................... ;D
edited to add .. 1st 2 seem ok, 2nd 2 seem a bit odd to open but i've loaded them twice now and same result - help?!
Mel
-
Mel lovely pics.
Sorry for the delay but I've been trying to work out what to include and what not.
Etruscan vases info taken from
Art-Union journal 1847 – reported article titled
ETRUSCAN FORMS &c. IN OPALESCENT GLASS (note it refers to them as opalescent glass. I don’t think they are what we would call opalescent though)
- Firstly your picture of your lady does not appear to be the same style as the painting on the group of pieces page 138 in the Art-Union journal, but the vase and the graphic borders and decoration definitely does. It says in the article
‘The subjects engraved (I think the report is referring to the engravings they made to print in the article, not that the vases are engraved) are selected with a view to dissimilarity of form and purpose as much as possible; they are, however, but a few of the many in circulation : and we have no doubt that ultimately they will be followed by others still more meritorious; for success cannot fail to prompt to renewed exertions.
The subjects at present introduced are principally from the Hamiltonian collection, varying in degrees of artistic merit according to the dates at which they were produced.’
In other words I think yours may be from another ‘range’or source of inspiration. I had a quick look at various Etruscan style pictures of dance form, and yours fits in well with something like that and some of those pictures.
- In discussing the first vase which has the most in common with yours in terms of the graphic borders etc (which are the same), it says
‘ The brilliant effect of the black ornaments upon this vase, relieved, as they are, by small portions of dark red, is very striking and vivid’. Which fits the colours on your vase as well.
- With regards the black wave like stylised border on your vase which is the same as on the vase I described earlier as well, it says of a cup (wine glass shape I think it’s referring to) that has the same border
‘The drinking-cup is ornamented with a simple band, exhibiting a not uncommon Etruscan pattern, and which is sometimes used to indicate water – much in the manner of the hieroglyphics of Egypt
- Interesting information regarding the decoration on the vases.
It says earlier in the actual Art Union article ‘In offering to the attention of our readers the examples of the vases produced by MR GILLER of Bartlett’s Buildings, Holborn * we may congratulate ourselves….’
Then the asterisked paragraph is explained thus
‘ *Although Mr Giller has the merit of introducing this very beautiful novelty on ground, or opaque, glass, with the Greek form and ornament, he is not, strictly speaking, the manufacturer; the glass is made at Stourbridge by W. Thomas Webb, whose WORKS are fully described and illustrated in the “Art Union” (April 1846), and the figures and other ornaments are pencilled on the glass at the establishment of Messrs. BATTAM AND SON, of Gough Square.’
Therefore it seems, Webb made the blanks, Battam and Sons drew the pictures and Mr Giller painted them ?
In CH book caption under the picture page 138 it says ‘decorated by Mr Giller’.
- In describing the glass it says
'These vases, &c are imitations or those executed in Greece and Etruria; like the Portland Vase they are of glass, of the purest white; the outer portion being of rough texture, producing the most delicate character.'
I hope this is interesting :)
m
-
Edited to add
Actually I do wonder if your vase might be from the same range? It's very difficult to tell, with the wear to the enamels on your picture of the lady, what she would have looked like if all the outline was in place. Also it's trying to compare your vase picture with an engraving done to print for the article, so the depiction on the engraving looks very stylised and it's also hard to tell as the engraving is printed in black and white, exactly which bits are in colour. On the one I compared yours to as the closest it has red in it as yours does. On another it has red and black plus yellow and lilac for example. It talks in the article of the white body of the vase being used as a 'third' colour on the red and black vases, but it is hard to know as the pictures similar show as engravings if you see what I mean?
And also, on another vase there is a lady playing a double flute that has bands of colour it seems around the bottom of her skirt or dress as yours does.
m
-
sorry, I'm adding here as I go along but I do think your vase is likely from the same range.
It looked 'free-hand' painted in the original pics because of the wear to the enamelling around the outlines of the picture, but looking at the close up shot I think it is the same as the ones depicted. Just that they didn't choose your vase to depict.
m
-
m, thank you so much there is such a lot of info here I am reading and re-reading to take it all in :) will come back in a while to comment further
-
Hi m,
thanks again for taking the time to send such a comprehensive and useful reply
I'm sure I can see pencil lines on the outside of the lady in places where the enamels have worn away so fits in nicely with the
Thomas Webb >>Battam and Sons >> Mr Giller chain of production.
I've spent time searching for other examples on the net today and can still find nothing of a similar shape or design which makes the info you provided doubly useful
thanks again
Mel
-
you're welcome. I think you'll struggle to find another of this version. CH British Glass only has the reprints of the Art-Union magazine for these vases, no real life one.
There is another group there by another maker called Davis, Greathead and Green who operated Dial Glasshouse in Amblecote. The plate shown 106 is of three of their vases from the 1851 exhibition (black and white plate), which were illustrated in the official catalogue. According to the book, in 1991 a pair of vases (shown in real life as a photo) which match the illustrated ones from DGG (well one matches exactly the other is a different design), 'were discovered at a Midlands antique fair which match the shape and decoration...'
I think these are all rare pieces to be honest. They are 150yrs old plus. I've found one other which is a superb blue opaline. I'm contemplating whether or not to at the moment :) but it's expensive. I think it's probably Bohemian possibly Harrach as well. I think there are 9 shown in the book from various makers 2 of DGG, 1 marked M W & Co (the book says 'probably Molineax Webb) 2 which I think are Harrach, 1 Bacchus and 2 I think from Richardson and 1 unknown. That's not very many. The rest are pictorial rather than real life objects.
Then there is the pair Brian has (Harrach) and Keith's. So altogether, considering this was such an 'in vogue' design and considering there are at least 6 makers discussed here plus one unknown, the total is still only 12.
m
-
Daniel has this one as Webb Etruscan and it does have similarities in shape with one in the book and the Art-Union magazine, but I think the lady's clothing and her hair remind me a lot of the Davis, Greathead and Green vases I mentioned.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/art-of-glass/6167707196/in/set-72157627592071579/
m
-
These are seriously expensive
From Sotheby's
a pair of Russian Opaline glass vases c.1835 with classical enamelled figures - est - $150,000-$200,000
from the Imperial Glass Manufactury
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2007/russian-art-n08302/lot.90.lotnum.html
m
-
lol, yes m, I saw both Dan's and the Sotherby's examples in my hunting around yesterday.
Think the Russian ones are in a league of their own ;D
.......if only :( ..........anyone want to buy a battered old b/w vase that may or may not be English or Bohemian (just kidding)
Mel
p.s on the plus side my Reynolds book arrived today ;D
-
it is English Mel. I'm sure yours is Webbs Etruscan.
m
-
... I like this piece, and if any help at all, I shall try to locate several pics of examples that I once had...
ALL of which were firmly attributed to have being produced in USSR early to mid-c20th...
However, each of mine had a very distinct number & mark that was located about 2" inside of their neck...
I overlooked this, but they are very evident once you find them. These marks are also found upon some decanters.
I used my finger to feel for the marks (rather than to look for them)
and then by holding the piece sideways, they are then able to be read.
I am not suggesting that YOUR piece is Russian, but mine were, and the neck marks would be worth looking for,
as they are also highly desirable items, some of which are gilded, with "European Classical" designs, which is quite scarce for Russian items of the period...
They each seem to have been produced in white only, plus of course their coloured decorative features...
and all have a ground & polished pontil, and are heavy for their size.
John
-
Mel, I'm not sure I'm allowed to put this here, but since I own the original pages and they are from a magazine 150 years old presumably I'm ok to do so?
There are 8 pieces featured in the article and CH has put the article in the book. I've picked the vase that has most design features in common with yours. The photograph is of my pages from the magazine, not the CH book (but obviously the same as reproduced in the book).
Sorry the page was slightly creased so it makes their engraving of the foot of the vase look wonky :) it's not, just I couldn't get my page to straighten out.
The other information I've given you above comes from this same article about these pieces.
m
Mod: M, image should be fine as it's probably well out of copyright
-
m, thanks for posting that.
I can see the similarities you speak of
And thats' the Webb blank painted by Mr Giller? (getting confused)
Mel
-
John thanks for that additional info.
I have looked and felt around the neck I cannot find any marks or numbers.
Yes please, if you can track them down I would love to see the pictures you speak of
Mel
-
quote from m..............."Opaline is a discussion for another day lol, I'm currently gathering references and sources on the definition of it".
I look forward to reading your thesis m...........but are you sure you can fit it all in. ;) For me this whole area of opalin/opaline/opalescent/opal/alabaster/vitrified remains confusing, and would be very useful to have these clarified, even if it transpires that some are no more than synonyms. Apparently the word opaline didn't see the light of day until 1907, or at least so one of my books says, and I notice that Manley doesn't use the word (at least it's not in his index).
Sorry this is a bit 'off track' - delete if you want to. :)
-
to Mel -- yes it is.
I would like a second opinion to confirm mine but I am more than 99% sure your vase is also :)
m
to Paul
Please could you quote references when you make statements :) especially one as important as 'Apparently the word opaline didn't see the light of day until 1907'. Thanks.
I've formulated a post with references etc, and am just refining it and will then start a thread on it :)
I can't speak for Manley. I don't have it and don't use it because quite a lot of information has come to light since he did the book.
m
-
I think apart from the foot & rim wave bands the sequence of neck bands swings it for me. If only I could find that shape of vase firmly attributed to Webb I'd be a happy girl m
Mel
-
hello m........ :)
my main reasons for omitting book references now, is that I'm aware a lot of people simply don't have the books - which is probably the reason they come to the GMB - I did previously quote my sources (and I'm a great believer in doing so) but what's the point if it means nothing to 98% of viewers :)
The details of the book to which I was referring are.......'Skira Dictionary of Modern Decorative Arts 1851 - 1942' by Valerio Terraroli published in Milan in 2001 - page 148 (English text).
Other books that provide some degree of reference to this subject (in no particular order, but with English text only) are..... Harold Newman (dictionary) - Mark West (which believe you now have) - Muriel M. Miller 'Popular Collectables Glass' - Felice Melhman - Barbara Morris - Hajdamach - Gulliver - Phoebe Phillips (Editor) 'The Encyclopeadia of Glass - Dan Klein & Ward Lloyd 'The History of Glass' and at least one of the standard Miller's large format books plus internet sources etc.
From memory think I did offer you a copy of Manley - you could be right about the errors - I really don't know whether the critiscisms of his book are valid - but I would have thought that reference to his book was essential in any discussion of the subject of which we're speaking.
I'm doubtful that the way to go with this matter is an open forum inviting comments from all and sundry - all you will end up with is a variety of opinions (including the usual differences from the two sides of the pond), and we'll be back to square one.
Why don't you evaluate the book information, come to a conclusion, and then publish the definitive meanings for each word............and just let them dare to criticize you. ;D
P.S. By the way, you're still welcome to my spare copy of Manley ;)
P.P.S. If you want to communicate with me, off Board, please free to do so. :)
-
... having only been computer literate for 3 years, I have always relied upon books and other peoples teachings, however even the best of books have at times since been proved to be inaccurate in certain areas. Many online referencies are completely inaccurate too. One book in particular which was always recognised as "The Bible" in terms of Lalique Perfume bottles, has become known as having wrong information within it. Authors, I am sure all act in the best of good faiths, and when without any other written documents to go by, will of course base their own research upon their own opinion, as so-called 'leaders' of their field... I do not suppose that this can be helped, and neither can everything be 100% positive unless of course factual attribution/evidence exists...
Allegedly, many of the early Millers Guides are wrong, not to mention some of the attributions that are made on television by some "experts."
With the above in mind, "I" have always believed it to be the case that "Opaline" was only ever produced in France. At least to begin with...
But, I did read that in a book! :-)
-
am sure you're right John............and I certainly wouldn't want to under-rate any contribution from m which would be very useful - so look forward to enlightenment anytime soon.
I've highjacked this thread too much anyway, so apologies to Mel and m. :)
-
'hello m........
my main reasons for omitting book references now, is that I'm aware a lot of people simply don't have the books - which is probably the reason they come to the GMB - I did previously quote my sources (and I'm a great believer in doing so) but what's the point if it means nothing to 98% of viewers '
The point is that someone else somewhere will have the book and will be able to verify or argue with your comment. Or if someone else later on has a different view and can evidence their view, it helps to know the resource for a conflicting fact so the evidence can be double checked.
Otherwise one could just say anything and it will appear as a stated fact -
Of course 'I think...', 'I believe...' 'It's my opinion...' all have their place in a discussion, and it's from those views and the knowledge expressed therein, and the sharing and disseminating of information, that fact can be formed (and even those may change over time as more information becomes available on a subject).
But it is my opinion, that having a verification for a stated comment makes the difference between something being an evidenced fact or just a personal opinion.
m
-
quote................."Otherwise one could just say anything and it will appear as a stated fact" .........hope you aren't suggesting m that I'd ever say 'just anything' - at least not when quoting from a book.
quote..............."The point is that someone else somewhere will have the book and will be able to verify or argue with your comment".......a fair point m, but only if there is another GMB member who actually owns a copy of this book and is prepared to join the discussion.
o.k. - hands up then please...........who else on the GMB owns a copy of the Skira dictionary :) Whilst my personal opinion on attribution/provenace may at times be very suspect, I think we all need to be 100% honest when quoting from books - there'd be no point in being otherwise - whether we give the reference or not.
I seemed rather alone in the days when I gave references, and got the impression that most people weren't really bothered if I did or not - as I've said, quite possibly because few people consider it useful to buy the books....................that is apart from you and me ;) :-*
-
'The point is that someone else somewhere will have the book and will be able to verify or argue with your comment.'
that was not my whole point. My whole point was as below. I should have put a comma after comment :)
'The point is that someone else somewhere will have the book and will be able to verify or argue with your comment. Or if someone else later on has a different view and can evidence their view, it helps to know the resource for a conflicting fact so the evidence can be double checked.'
and it illustrates my next comment beautifully
I'm sure people are honest when quoting from a book. However, people do not quote an entire page or chapter when quoting from a book and it has to be said, quotes can be misconstrued by being taken out of context. For example, it may be that someone writes a sentence, but then later in the chapter revisits that comment to make more or something different of it. This doesn't get quoted, so the original sentence can be out of context. That sentence might then be repeated and become a 'fact'.
I have actually come across an example of this exact point in relation to the comment - Opaline is only made in France.
m
-
Regret I have no idea from whence the author obtained the information that the word opaline surfaced only in 1907 - so short of writing to them (which I might do), unsure of how we verify, or otherwise, that statement. The word opaline appears to have arrived via 'opalin', being the early C19 description as used by Baccarat, so the point now is to discover whether both words simply describe the same product. But then you also have opalescent, so is that the same as opaline/opalin........... ;)
However, looking forward to your magnum opus on this subject :)
finito/fin/the end
-
That point made in the quote Paul gave above, about the word opaline only being used from 1907 is, I believe, incorrect-
The word opaline was used (and in conjunction with the word glass) in an article in the American Journal of Science & Arts in July 1834
(see quote below - I have reproduced the entire paragraph and it is my underlining to draw attention to the words 'opaline glass')
Source: volume 26 - American Journal of Science & Arts in July 1834: Ch VII On the colour of the air and deep Waters and on some other analgous fugitive colours, COUNT XAVIER DE MAISTRE
page 67 -
'But it often happens that the colors do not appear and the sun sets without producing them. It is not therefore to the purity of the air alone that we must attribute the opaline property of the atmosphere, but to the mixture of air and vapour mingled in a special manner, and producing an effect similar to bone dust in opaline glass, neither is it the quantity of water in the air which occasions colours, for when the weather is very damp, it is more transparent than during times of drought.'
He also uses it on page 66-
'...which is also observed in some other siliceous stones, and which is still more obvious in opaline glass'
link here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FCdGAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA66&dq=opaline+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M6X_UMDxLaHK0AX_ooDgDQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=opaline%20glass&f=false
m
-
Interesting that he appears to be referring to the property of glowing reddish, i.e., the sunset effect, when held against the light - what we would call opalescence and opalescent glass
-
I thought the same but when I hold up my opaline glass to the sun or bright light, it glows red through it. I think that is the factor of the bone ash content.
As far as I can see from reading so far, both older Opaline (translucent but not transparent glass as we would know it) and Opalescent glass (reheated to achieve the opalescence as we would know it) used bone ash to achieve the opacity. Opalescent glass as we woul, d call it is then reheated to achieve the opalescent effect. I wondered if it was the bone ash that causes the red glow in both ?
But I do think there is a possible 'change of terminology' at some point ...I wonder if older tomes and reports refer to what we know as opaline glass , as opalescent glass because it is more transparent that Milchglas or Lattimo both of which are very dense and opaque and look like porcelain and as far as I can see used tin oxide to produce the effect, rather than bone ash (although I've just found another report that say something else was used to produce Milchglas ...still investigating on that one).
Also a lot of that article discusses the effect of the blue sky and the blue of the sea - not necessary opaline effect I wouldn't think (Opaline as we think of it ie a consistent colour and density of colour for the most part throughout a piece of glass when looking at it) whereas the colour of the sea and sky changes in intensity and effect so perhaps would be better compared to 'opalescent' as we think of it. Need to investigate more
m
-
I added to my reply above :)
Also, I found the following book very interesting (unfortunately there are many pages of this book (see link) missing because it's a 'part read' on the net, but it looks fascinating)
There is one reference I could find to opaline glass produced by the Venetians in the 17th century
where it says
'Venetian opaline glass of the 17th century was made by using arsenic and calcined bones in the batch. When heated, these materials struck an opalescent white colour.'
The source is: Conservation and Restoration of Glass by Sandra Davison
first edition 1989 second edition 2003
page reference for above quote - pg 77
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JUG9ittlqZwC&pg=PA77&dq=opaline+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Pbj_UOSjA8a80QWbyoD4DA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=opaline%20glass&f=false
-
I think my point is more that according to the count opaline (i.e., opal-like, -ine meaning like) glass has to have the property of opalescence, not that all opalescent glass is opaline. This may not fit the French definition of opaline glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaline_glass http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/429556/opaline-glass). Opalescence does have a real definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opalescence
-
yes I see what you mean -according to the Count, for it to be classed as opaline i.e opal 'like', the glass needs to have opalescent properties. And in fact he states a method of producing opaline glass on page 66 as follows:
' Opaline glass is produced by mingling in the common metal of white glass, a portion of calcined bones, which gives a blue shade without impairing the transparency.' - Source: volume 26 - American Journal of Science & Arts in July 1834: Ch VII On the colour of the air and deep Waters and on some other analgous fugitive colours, COUNT XAVIER DE MAISTRE - page 66
I have attached a picture of my Salviati ewer which I believe demonstrates his sentence above. I would class it as opalescent glass not opaline glass though.
I think this poses a question mark over what is often now termed opaline glass?
Harold Newman has a different description of opaline glass - this is a quote from an article online that was put on the Beerstein website:
Source: this is a link to The Beerstein site on the net ( http://www.beerstein.net/articles/bsj-1b.htm ) that has reproduced a list of glass terms under the heading ‘ Glass Glossary , Terminology for the Glass Collector* by Ron Fox’, citing as reference sources An Illustrated Dictionary of Glass, by Harold Newman and with permission cited as *Reprinted from The Beer Stein Journal, August 1994,by permission from Gary Kirsner Auctions.
Within that list are the following terms and definitions:
‘ Bone ash – ashes of bones used as flux in the glass-making process that produces Opaline glass.’
‘Opaline – a dense translucent glass that derives its diffused nature from the addition of bone ash, and is colored using metallic oxides, usually in pastel hues.’
Or perhaps I've just been identifying the pieces incorrectly? .... along with many other people.
I don't agree with the definitions of opaline glass in Wikipedia or in Britannica though. According to various sources I have found (Hajdamach British Glass 1800-1914, Dan Klein, The History of Glass) opaline glass was produced in France, Bohemia and Great Britain in the 19thc. (will provide sources in my post below in the thread)
And if you use the source I gave above, then opaline glass was produced in Venice in the C17th - Sandra Davison, Conservation and Restoration of Glass).
Felice Mehlman adds America to that list and has a different definition of opaline glass:
Source - Felice Mehlman : The Illustrated Guide to Glass - Page 216 under the heading Opaline
‘Opaline is a semi-opaque translucent glass, often of “milk and water” appearance or coloured, produced in France 1825-1870 at Baccarat (where the term opalin was first used c 1823), Saint-Louis, Le Creusot, Choisy-le-Roi, Bercy and other factories. Early wares – vases, carafes and boxes, were of elegant form and proportion, frequently ormolu-mounted and of subtle shades. After about 1835, surfaces were sometimes enamelled and/or gilded, and as production increased to meet demand the range of opaline extended to include variety of domestic wares. Special colours were: gorge de pigeon (“pigeon’s neck” : translucent mauve); bulles de savon (soap bubbles: delicate rainbow hues); yellow, turquoise and violet. White, bright greens and blues were more common. In England, opaline was manufactured in the 1840s and 1850s by Richardson of Stourbridge (painted and gilded with classical scenes, flowers, or with trailed decoration such as coiled serpants), George Bacchus of Birmingham (transfer- printed designs for cheaper wares), J.F. Christy and Rice Harris of the Islington Glass Co.; and in the USA after c1830 by the Boston and Sandwich Glass Co. Since c.1932 opaline manufacture has continued in Venice.’
-
I've just edited and added to my post above to include more information :)
m
-
Felice and Newman seems to at least go with translucent and pastel, whereas wiki and Britannia go for anything coloured and translucent or even opaque (loose interpretation)
-
Just as reminder from the Board Policy document: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,6521.0.html
Opinion should cite any references where possible
so please do cite book details. :)
-
I’ve added some pictures for reference, of my 19th century opaline glass (or what I would call opaline glass) to show how they compare to the early to mid 19th century descriptions cited above, as they are from c. the same era.
All sources are cited previously in the thread.
1) the first is an identified Baccarat perfume bottle - 19th c, and would be classified as opaline glass(my definition of) I believe. It is thick glass, and slightly translucent but by no means could it be classed as demonstrating opalescent properties and is definitely not transparent and translucency is minimal
2) the second is a mid 19thC pedestal tazza with trailed pink rim, also believed to be French. Translucent to some degree but not transparent by any means and does not demonstrate opalescent properties.
3) a small jug with red trailed rim, more translucent than either of the above pieces, more finely made, would not class as transparent but is certainly more so than the above piece, does not demonstrate opalescent properties as far as I can see. Identified using source 'Glass - Millers Antique Checklist, Mark West pg 53) as Baccarat opaline glass. Believed to be c mid C19th
4) c.mid C19th green mantle lustre satinised exterior polished interior, does not demonstrate opalescent properties is translucent, is definitely not transparent – attributed as possibly Josephinenhutte.
All of which I would call opaline glass using Newman's definition
'Opaline – a dense translucent glass that derives its diffused nature from the addition of bone ash, and is colored using metallic oxides, usually in pastel hues.’
Although all, as far as I can see, have a greater translucency then Mel’s vase I believe Mel’s vase dates to 1847 and I would still have described Mel’s vase as opaline glass.
And that is where the link with this thread lies and where my confusion lies in general regarding descriptors of opaline glass.
The Count in 1834 described opaline glass thus
‘Opaline glass is produced by mingling in the common metal of white glass, a portion of calcined bones, which gives a blue shade without impairing the transparency.' His description appears, to me, to be of what I would call opalescent glass. And as you read a little further in the article it does appear he is describing opalescent glass. And indeed Christine commented above, that the word opaline may have been used in this context as meaning opaline = opal ‘ine’ – opal ‘like’
And then in 1847, in the article I cited earlier on in the thread from the Art-Union magazine, which shows engravings of what I believe are the same glass and the same range as Mel's vase, the author of that article( written in 1847) titles it 'Opalescent glass'. Now I would call Mel’s vase opaline glass based on Newman's description.
Charles Hajdamach reproduced that article but does not refer to either opaline or opalescent when describing these vases but merely refers to them as Etruscan.
And although it is difficult to be sure as some of the items under discussion are illustrations, I think there are further examples of confusion over terminology/descriptors from different eras, demonstrated by the following two points:
- on page 113 of British Glass 1800-1914 Charles Hajdamach shows a photograph (plate 84) in black and white unfortunately, of a vase that appears to be quite dense white glass I think in a very similiar vein to Mel's although not satinised on the exterior, with the plate description as
'plate 84. White opaline vase, sepia enamelled with a scene of Ulysses weeping at the song of Demodocus, after an engraving by Flaxman; c 1851. Height 18 1/2in. (47.2cm)'
(My underlining to draw attention to the glass descriptor of opaline)
But then we have this
- on page 139 plate 104 (bottom right hand corner vase) he pictures another vase that again to my eye looks as though it is made from a similar glass to Mel's, i.e. I would call it opaline glass, although admittedly it is difficult to be sure as this is an illustration rather than a photograph.
It was a vase from Molineaux Webb & Co of Manchester shown at the Great Exhibition. In the book CH quotes from the catalogue written in 1851 in the following paragraph, (page 136/137) 'At the Great Exhibition the Etruscan style of decoration appeared on many of the glass stands. One page of the catalogue was devoted to the glass of Molineaux, Webb and Co in Manchester and featured at the bottom right a vase described as "opalescent...engraved after Flaxman's design of Diomed casting his spear at Mars" (plate104).' (The Great Exhibition, and therefore the catalogue description of 'opalescent glass', dates to 1851.)
So it seems to me that in 1834 opaline glass was the name for what we would now call opalescent glass and, as demonstrated by the comments in 1847 and 1851, what I would now call opaline glass was at that time named opalescent glass.
i.e. the complete opposite of current usage of terminology.
Also although I have a number of c1850 i.e. early opaline(my definition of) glass pieces, I do not have a single piece of opaline (my definition of) glass that I believe demonstrates opalescent (dictionary definition of) properties or even 'opal' like properties if you think of an opal stone and the colours it refracts.
So where this use of the word opalescent in the 19th century to describe what I would call opaline glass comes from is a curiosity to me.
I can understand the descriptor of opaline being used to described opalescent glass if you take Christine's term of opaline= opal 'ine'-opal'like'.
And finally, which term is correct for use now?
m
-
And none of them have been subjected to reheating. Bone ash, if indeed it was used, was used as simply as an opacifier.
It seems like somewhere/sometime the use of opaline became inaccurate and the use of opalescent became sloppy rather than a complete switch round. Walsh's canary opalescent is indeed opalescent
-
Thinking out loud here and just musing
it may be that the word opaline as the Count uses it was correct at the time of 1834 because
- early opaline might have been quite transparent (more as Italian Girosol glass maybe? is that opalescent in that it's been reheated or is it a very transparent form of opaline glass really?) and only in white therefore it might well have given off different colours like my Salviati ewer does because it was quite transparent. So whilst it sounds as though he was describing our term of opalescent glass, in fact he may not have been describing opalescent glass restruck to produce the colour spectrum. It might just be that opaline glass at that time was as I've just described.
Then the description as he uses it might have become inaccurate because
- as time went on opaline might have become more translucent and less watery in appearance but still translucent, and also with the introduction of colours to opaline glass, the definition as given by the Count may have not stood the test of change?
I can only think that opalescent as used in the above sources (1847 and 1851) as a term to describe, what clearly looks like, white opaline glass (although quite opaque by comparison to my little jug for example) in the vases as I described in CH and also Mel's for example, might have been used as opal 'escent' i.e. also opal 'like' meaning white 'like' , so using the opal as a white colour descriptor, rather than as a comparison to the stone opal or as a descriptor of having been heat treated to display opalescent qualities.
Especially since I've now found an 1844 reference and description of opaline glass here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eDpc0eHOv-cC&pg=PA309&dq=opaline+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cTUAUb6XDYzP0AWDnoD4DA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=opaline%20glass&f=false
(btw this is a fascinating read for all sorts of things but especially glass, the section of which starts on page 303, so if you get a chance do click the link and have a read)
Source: An Encyclopaedia of Domestic Economy, Books I-VII Elibron Classics -
'This Elibron Classic Replica Edition is an unabridged facsimile of the edition published 1844 by Longman, Brown, Green and Longman, London'
Page 309 no 1307 'Opaline glass is of a semi-transparent opaline hue, used for various ornamental articles, chiefly for the boudoir. The effect is produced by adding to the best glass a small quantity of oxide of tin or what is better, phosphate of lime, or well burnt bone ash.'
btw none of this is going to help with my next query which is....would Mel's vase be described as opaline glass and is my Harrach Etruscan vase described as opaline glass ;D
m
-
With regard Mel finding a shape that is the same as her vase and my comment on their scarcity -
whilst I've no idea whether these (Webb's Etruscan decorated by Giller) were exhibited at the Great Exhibition in 1851 or not, certainly those produced by Davis, Greathead and Green of Amblecote, which are in a similar style and also Etruscan, were, and Hajdamach shows a copy of the illustration from the catalogue and talks about the 'discovery' of two of these pieces at in 1991 at a Midlands Antiques fair. He also shows photographs of those two pieces.
He also says on page 131 under the chapter heading International Exhibitions:
'... . If the aims of the exhibitions were somewhat fallacious and patronising, of more interest now are the objects which were displayed at those events. Glasses from the exhibitions periodically appear on the market but their importance and provenance often go unrecognised. In the last few years the Richardson vase with the scene of Ulysses weeping at the song of Demodocus (plate 84), the Last Supper goblet (Plate 109) and the fragment of the MOrrison tazza (Plate 110) have been identified from illustrations or entries in the catalogues. Even with the wealth of illustration in the exhibition catalogues ... the majority of the glasses that were displayed remain lost or unidentified.'
m
-
I think the count is using white as in clear/colourless...
-
yes that's what I mean - colourless with an opacifier I think is what gave the 'white' opaline glass. And it was a while before colours were introduced (need to check dates on that though) - I was just wondering if, at the time he wrote it, opaline glass was just white but very translucent which would fit his description.
m
-
ff, with regard to Hajdamach and the 1851 "Diomed casting his spear at Mars" vase, attributed to Molineaux Webb, I noticed a mismatch between that page in the Exhibition book and the inventory in another section... this is what I said on my own website:
---
Other websites and researchers have assumed all the images on the page are Molineaux & Webb pieces, but a careful look at the Exhibition Catalogue leaves room for doubt, especially with the opal vase of "Diomed casting his spear at Mars."
No such item is listed under the Molineaux & Webb section of the Exhibition Catalogue, but the next manufacturer in the catalogue, Richardsons of Stourbridge, list "opal vases, painted with enamel colours", and one of the subjects is "Diomed casting his spear at Mars." This probable mis-identification of manufacturers is further supported by a remark by Roger Dodsworth in an article on the Manchester glass industry in Volume 4 of the Glass Circle. In discussing this object he says "as the vase is opalescent it is more likely to have been transfer-printed from an engraved plate, a technique usually associated with Richardson's of Wordsley."
-
Hi Neil
thank you for correcting that :) (this is a correction to the maker in an earlier post by me
' on page 139 plate 104 (bottom right hand corner vase) he pictures another vase that again to my eye looks as though it is made from a similar glass to Mel's, i.e. I would call it opaline glass, although admittedly it is difficult to be sure as this is an illustration rather than a photograph.
It was a vase from Molineaux Webb & Co of Manchester shown at the Great Exhibition. In the book CH quotes from the catalogue written in 1851 in the following paragraph, (page 136/137) 'At the Great Exhibition the Etruscan style of decoration appeared on many of the glass stands. One page of the catalogue was devoted to the glass of Molineaux, Webb and Co in Manchester and featured at the bottom right a vase described as "opalescent...engraved after Flaxman's design of Diomed casting his spear at Mars" (plate104).' (The Great Exhibition, and therefore the catalogue description of 'opalescent glass', dates to 1851.)'
What's also interesting though is that you quote Dodsworth as calling the vase opalescent :
'" This probable mis-identification of manufacturers is further supported by a remark by Roger Dodsworth in an article on the Manchester glass industry in Volume 4 of the Glass Circle. In discussing this object he says "as the vase is opalescent it is more likely to have been transfer-printed from an engraved plate, a technique usually associated with Richardson's of Wordsley."'
My underlining to draw attention to the word opalescent.
Furthermore, from what you have said, it seems Richardsons described their vases as being opal, from the wording in the Exhibition Catalogue given above. I have noted that in CH British Glass, there is the use of the word opal and also opaline. I was leaving that for another day lol. but it seems to have bearing on this subject.
-
... it seems Richardsons described their vases as being opal ...
I have no idea of the actual context of that use of "opal", but to many glassworkers it usually just meant "coloured in a shade of white". On that basis, "opal" could be a correct description for "white opaline" but not all white glass could be called "opaline".
[I am happy to delete this post if it just causes confusion. ;D]
-
Kev, I do think it's a possibility that white glass was described as opal glass, rather than opal glass being used a particular descriptor of how the glass was made.
I think the Cristallerie de Clichy book might hold the clue to partly understanding the various old and current descriptions of opaline glass.
I'm off to bed now :) but will post in the morning.
m
-
What Kev says about opal is a point Bernard has made. The origins of descriptors are generally based on observations, i.e., but to quote myself
It seems like somewhere/sometime the use of opaline became inaccurate
It was probably arose as a marketing ploy; white opal/white opaline is so much more romantic and attractive sounding than white and you could apply to all of the colours. The manufacturers needed spiel to attract the retailers who needed it to attract the customers. Think how many of us hoover...
-
just as an aside - and slightly amusing in the context of this thread (but annoying to me, the seller)..............
I've a piece of Webb's/S&W 'peachblow' gowing up for aution in Surrey in early Feb., and I've a copy of the handwritten original receipt when I submitted the glass, which shows the word 'peachblow' (which I gave to the auctioneer)
Just received the on line confirmation of the catalogue entry for my glass, and it shows the description as 'Red and White Opaline' ....ughhhh.
Firstly my compliments to m for her mammoth efforts on this subject - although not sure that a conclusion is any nearer - almost a case of the more you learn the less you know. :'(
Reading the Count's words (repeated above more than once), he comments that the translucent milky blue effect is produced by the inclusion of calcined bones......and he goes on to say that the sunset colours (my words) are seen when viewed in transmitted light.
WHAT HE DOESN'T SAY........is that the metal needs to be re-heated in order to achieve this effect (or did I miss that somewhere) - thus the phosphates in the bones produce the fiery glows independently of any additional heating. This type of glass showing the suset glow is by definition OPALESCENT, and is what most people call to mind when they use the term.
The thicker the glass the greater the opacity/milky blue effect, and the deeper/reder the sunset glow.
The similar pale blueish glass from Salviati (I do have a wine glass) does have a sunset glow, and is therefore also opalescent.
If you read Cottle and look at the Venetian Revival glass from Sowerby (from the 1870's), presumably influenced by Salviati, you again see the pale blueish translucent effect of opalescence.
In conclusion - can we say that any translucent/partially translucent glass which has calcined bones added to the metal (or modern phosphates) - whether coloured with metal oxides or not - is by definition 'opalescent' - due to the sunset glow.
In my opinion 'opalescent' may be a more practical word as a description (in view of the fact that it accords with the sunset glow), than opaline - and in view of m's link to the Count's early description we now seem forced to accept that the two words are synonyms.
If the sunset glow cannot be seen, and the glass is opaque (coloured or white), then the material is not opalescent.
Confusion has be made worse by the multitude of trade names that have been used over the past 150 years or so - using some form of the word opal.
The above may apply to English speaking communications only, perhaps ...........maybe the French are alread sharpening their knives (wanting to retain 'opaline') - and I may get a knock on the door any moment. ;)
-
oppps, sorry Anne..
Ref. 'Sowerby - Gateshead Glass' - Simon Cottle - (Tyne and Wear Musuem Service) - 1986.
-
Paul
I have just formulated a very long reply to posts above your comments and drawn some conclusions - using pictures to demonstrate. It would be very helpful and less confusing if you could delete your reply above and wait until I've posted :) would you mind awfully? It then might answer some of the questions you have raised.
Thank you
m
-
hello m :)
Whilst I appreciate the politness of your request, I fail to understand that one post needs to be withdrawn - before posting another, I've not been aware of this happening previously.
My post is an effort to define a conclusion - assuming this is what we are all trying to do - however, if you consider it out of place, then I shall instruct the Mods. to delete entirely - I would not wish to provide a post that is thought to be detracting from a conclusion.
Will the Mods. please therefore delete my post entirely and not replace at any later time. Many thanks :)
P.S. Pleased to say that the auction house have agreed to amend the description of my peachblow.
-
This reply was formulated before Paul wrote his two posts just above -
Paul, I apologise if my request offended you, but I've spent the last two hours formulating a response to the posts made above your most recent two posts and I just wondered whether you might wait until I had posted my response before adding yours please, to avoid any confusion? My conclusions are just that...mine, i.e.they are not conclusions to the whole debate :)
If not don't worry.
m
I agree with Kev and Christine and think the word opal is just used as a posh version of 'white' to make it sound better. And I’ve found a good reference to demonstrate this in the Cristallerie de Clichy book - can we address that issue in a separate thread?)
With regard opaline glass for the moment:
Here is a link to the book, 'La Cristallerie de Clichy' - not everything in the book is shown but there are many opaline pieces to view.
In my opinion viewing these adds much to this thread particularly because of the diversity of the appearance of the glass. I also think it demonstrates the 'change' from the Count's description of opaline glass in 1834, through the description of of 1844 from the Encyclopaedia of Domestic Economy, to Newman's description of 20th century (looking back on many more years of production than the Count was in 1834).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KEYMY4_ytuUC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=cristallerie+de+clichy&source=bl&ots=pTrRmfJT0n&sig=NRryzvIL1VOiils2KUSsqePB1nA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0_IAUcixCeOl0AWipID4DA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cristallerie%20de%20clichy&f=false
The Count described opaline in 1834 as -
' Opaline glass is produced by mingling in the common metal of white glass, a portion of calcined bones, which gives a blue shade without impairing the transparency.'
Reading the article he has written it did appear he was describing opalescent glass or something similar given the context of the article. I then mused that perhaps opaline glass had changed in appearance since he wrote the article.
Page 16 of the book shows a group of Charles X early opaline glass in a colour known as gorge de pigeon, dating to between 1824 and 1830 (the reign of Charles X). It's not exactly as I thought he was describing but there are two pieces there that would fit with his description easily, the largest being the jug, the other the beaker on the left. These may not be the colour of opaline he was referring to and it could well be that early white opaline also had these quite transparent properties but these are the best pictures I could find to demonstrate his description.
It is also possible that he was describing Boule de Savon opaline – this piece also dates to Charles X and is the third one down on this link to Alexia Amiato’s site which sells the most beautiful opaline glass btw http://www.alexiaamatoantiques.com/sold5.asp?category=6
Thereafter the appearance of the opaline glass shown in the Cristallerie de Clichy (page no's to follow) does not match his description but does appear to match the description of the Encyclopaedia and of Newman.
However, I think I would raise a query over Newman’s description – on the basis that his description states that opaline glass is made using bone ash to achieve its diffused nature. This does not tie in with the Encyclopaedia definition I gave above which states that bone ash, oxide of tin or phosphate of lime is used. I also believe Ivo has said arsenic can be used (need to find my reference) and I’ve also found another reference to arsenic being used as well (references to be added)
So in my opinion the description I would use for opaline glass is the one from the Encyclopaedia from 1844, with the addition of arsenic as an opacifier. This is open to debate, because is it possible that in more recent times other opacifiers are now used or are they still the same ones? Please add to this discussion .
For ease of reference I have again included these two descriptions* at the bottom of this post so you don’t have to go back and forth to check what they were.
Going back to the opaline glass shown in the Cristallerie de Clichy book, I’ve included page numbers below to show the different opaline.
Going through the book and comparing, I think I have found an interesting point about the use of the word opal as a description as well but we’ll come back to that.
The opaline glass shown in the online book and either captioned opaline glass or appearing under the chapter of opaline glass titled ‘Les opalines de Clichy’ is as below. The actual chapter runs from pages 255 to 282. There are a few other reference pictures of opaline glass captioned as such elsewhere in the book that I have also included.
16 – gorge de pigeon - Charles X
48 – green - 1850-1855
51 – yellow -1855
124 – green and blue perfumes
125 – celadon
259 – white
261 – green and blue
262 Green
274 blue - 1850
278 black -1870
These references raise two interesting issues for me
1) regarding the ‘appearance’ of opaline glass – so for example there are clear differences between the appearance of the green opaline vases bottom right on page 262 and the green opaline page 48. And another example would be the black opaline glass on page 278. This doesn’t appear to be translucent.
i.e. the appearance and the translucency of opaline can vary, but as long as it is not opaque and has some translucence it would be classed as opaline glass
2) On page 277 which is under the chapter ‘Les opalines de Clichy’ there are two white vases. These are also opaline glass as they appear under the Chapter header, but these are described as 'opale cristal' - I guess that is translated as 'opal crystal' or basically, using Kev's descriptor of opal, white crystal. Their appearance seems to be no different to the green page 262 and black page 278 versions described as opaline glass...except they are white. Their appearance is different to another set of white opaline shown on page 259 and is different to the white opaline glass I showed earlier in the thread, but I believe they are still classed as white opaline since they come under the chapter of ‘Les opalines de Clichy’. So, ‘opale cristal’ or opal crystal is presumably just a fancy way of saying white rather than a description of the glass make-up content.
So in summary –
1) Opaline glass was made in many countries not just France, and was made in many countries in the 19th century. Link to Alexia Amiato Antiques given above and link here to Mousa Antiques http://www.mousaantiques.co.uk/ both of whom sell the most beautiful opaline glass from various countries and have a huge inventory to browse through for eye candy :)
2) I believe the Harrach Etruscan vases and the Webb Etruscan blanks are opaline glass on the basis of:
- Using the Cristallerie de Clichy opaline glass pictures as a reference
- and that both Mel’s and my vase are translucent (Mel’s more so than mine, but mine is definitely not opaque),
- and given the date Mel’s vase was most likely made (it is most probable that Mel’s vase is a c1847 Webb Etruscan blank) and my Harrach vase was made (c1860 Harrach Etruscan), which would indicate it is likely they were opacified using bone ash or tin oxide or phosphate of lime (mine has a red shine when held up to strong light) and there is no evidence to demonstrate they were opacified using anything else,
- and that it is evidenced that opaline glass was made in many countries not just France,
- and that on page 113 of British Glass 1800-1914 Hajdamach shows a photograph of a vase that appears to be quite dense white glass in a similar vein to ours with a caption descriptor ‘White opaline vase, sepia enamelled with a scene of Ulysses weeping at the song of Demodocus, after an engraving by Flaxman; c1851. Height 18 ½” 47.2cm’
3) Therefore, I believe the title descriptor used in the article from the Art-Union magazine June 1847 page 222, and which article was reproduced in Hajdamach’s British Glass 1800-1914 on page 138, and which describes Webb’s Etruscan blanks as ‘Etruscan forms &c Opalescent Glass’ is incorrect to describe these as Opalescent Glass.
4) I believe the description of opaline glass needs to be - 'Opaline glass is of a semi-transparent opaline hue, used for various ornamental articles, chiefly for the boudoir. The effect is produced by adding to the best glass a small quantity of oxide of tin or what is better, phosphate of lime, or well burnt bone ash, or arsenic (I need to find my references for arsenic being used as an opacifier)
5) I cannot find any evidence that opal glass is an actual descriptor of how a vase was made, and I believe it is most likely that this is either a descriptor of the colour white or a ‘range name’ given as a marketing tool – separate discussion thread to be opened on the other descriptors that cause confusion.
Of course, this is open to discussion :)
I will add some reference pictures later to show the difference between opalescent glass and opaline glass and the variations on opaline glass (as I believe it to be) appearance so they remain on the thread for reference - but need a coffee now ;D
*References for the descriptions of opaline glass:
In 1844 the Encyclopaedia states - 'Opaline glass is of a semi-transparent opaline hue, used for various ornamental articles, chiefly for the boudoir. The effect is produced by adding to the best glass a small quantity of oxide of tin or what is better, phosphate of lime, or well burnt bone ash.'
In 20th century (can someone add the date of the book please?) Newman states - ‘Opaline – a dense translucent glass that derives its diffused nature from the addition of bone ash, and is colored using metallic oxides, usually in pastel hues.'
m
-
With reference my summary point no 4) * in my post above and regarding whether or not the addition of arsenic should be added to the description of opaline, Newman (same reference as previous) says this of Arsenic -
'Arsenic – an oxide of arsenic used to improve color, transparency, and brilliance, often used when producing opaque white glass or opaline.'
I don't know enough about glass production to know whether that indicates arsenic is used in conjunction with, or whether it can be used on it's own as an opacifier.
With regard the use of the word opal Newman says:
'Opal – see Opaline'
Does this mean that opal and opaline can be used as either/ or and be described as the same thing?
the other reference to the word opal in his list is under 'Alabaster glass' where he says
'Alabaster glass – see Milk glass and Opal glass.'
In addition to my point 2) in my summary above, in my reasons for describing Mel's vase and mine as opaline glass, I would like to add another Newman reference (same source as previously quoted)
where he says of opaque glass
'Opaque glass – solid colored glass that allows little or no light to pass through.'
m
*4) I believe the description of opaline glass needs to be - 'Opaline glass is of a semi-transparent opaline hue, used for various ornamental articles, chiefly for the boudoir. The effect is produced by adding to the best glass a small quantity of oxide of tin or what is better, phosphate of lime, or well burnt bone ash, or arsenic (I need to find my references for arsenic being used as an opacifier)
-
I'm pretty sure asrsenic oxide doesn't opacify without reheating. Tin oxide doesn't require reheating to opacify. Burnt bone and phosphate of lime are essentially the same thing and I'm pretty sure they don't require reheating to opacify either.
-
So arsenic should not be included then.
Thanks :)
m
-
Depends what you are trying to say. I'm pretty sure it's what creates the opalscent effect
-
oops I meant Bulle de Savon not Boule de Savon :)
ok, I've been rereading the Count's description and the whole article to put his use of the opaline glass analogy into context. Paul, I've been musing on your post as well.
Something occurred to me. Was opalescent glass around in 1834 and commonly known, when the Count made his definitive statement on opaline glass?
I've been back to 'The History of Glass', Klein and Lloyd for a read.
page 175
'...However, the coloured opaline glass for which Franch is best known was an independent development. Opaline was a translucent milky-white glass which, by the addition of various metallic oxides, could be coloured pink, mauve, turquoise, green or several other delicate shades. The manufacture of opalines began in about 1810, the earliest examples being classical in shape and generally undecorated except for the addition of ormolu mounts. In the 1830s, under the Bohemian influence, polygonal shapes and stronger colours were introduced and at the same time white opalines began to be painted...., in imitation of porcelain.'
It goes on to say that there was a first public exhibition of Russian manufacturers in ST Petersburg in 1828-1829 and talks amonst other colours etc, that there was a 'rosy opalescent glass' that was perhaps inspired by the French opalines'.
This is the first reference I can find to 'opalescent' and the way it is written I don't believe it implies the French opalines were in fact opalescent glass. Just that they inspired this piece. He does not show an example of it, so I'm unsure as to exactly how opalescent it was in look (our thoughts of what opalescent looks like). He goes on to discuss the opalines produced in Britian and the French opalines but there is no mention of opalescent (as we know it) glass and his pictures are all of opaline (as we know it) glass.
I also think his description of the opaline at the time as a 'translucent milky white glass' is very similar to the jug I showed from the Clichy link earlier.
I think this is what the Count was describing and I think it was opaline glass. I am unsure as to when 'opalescent' glass came into being (apart from the mention of the rosy opalescent Russian glass descriptor above). Perhaps in order to query the Count's description and my interpretation of it, we need to discover whether opalescent glass (as we know it, i.e. reheated to produce the opalescent effect) was around in the 1830s?
m
-
and here is a good picture of early Charles X white opaline glass that demonstrates the 'opal' like properties as you can in fact see the different colours refracting in the glass but is definitely not what I would call opalescent as we know it.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/a-charles-x-ormolu-mounted-opaline-1715724-details.aspx?intObjectID=1715724
I feel sure this is what the Count was describing when taken in context with the rest of his article.
m
-
That would give the fiery glow when held to the light and is opalescent as I understand it and definitely what the count described.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opalescence
-
okay, so two questions
1) ..has it been reheated to achieve the opalescence?
2) is it opaline glass?
and has opaline glass changed in physical presentation over time then as none of the coloured pieces in La Cristallerie de Clichy demonstrate those properties of opalescence apart from the first ones in gorge de pigeon, and they still call them all opaline glass.
m
-
1. Yes, I would say so. Arsenic was used to make colourless glass, the opalescent effect was probably a serendipitous discovery
2. Yes according to the count
3. Probably, back to my marketing theory. Bone ash would have been much cheaper than arsenic. (PS none of my white bits are opalescent).
-
none of my early white pieces are either but I have one and that was made thirty years ago by Neil Wilkin - looks completely plain milky white opaline (as we would know it, but it is quite thinnish and quite fine glass) in normal daylight but hold it up to the sun and the whole thing glows madly oranges and reds etc. I have a thick purple opaline vase that does that as well, although obviously not the whole thing glows, and I have a uranium green opaline lustre mid 19th that also glows orange when held up to the light.
None are opalescent glass as I know it.
But if we would call those Christie's vases opalescent glass, why do Klein and Lloyd not refer to this early glass as opalescent at all. They refer to them as opalines and do not mention opalescence even in conjunction with saying the Russians produced a 'rosy opalescent' piece.
m
-
this is a Christy tazza that the British museum call opaline - produced 1840
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=32708&partid=1&searchText=opaline+glass&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx¤tPage=1
quote from their website
'Very little is known about the glassworks of J.F. Christy at Lambeth. Surviving examples attributable to his firm all date from the late 1840s, when he was producing painted opaline glass in the manner of Richardson's of Stourbridge, who were the leading producers of painted glass at this time. Like Richardson's, he produced ornamental wares inspired by Greek vases and by contemporary French opaline glass.'
this is a Gray-stan vase they describe as having opalescent stripes
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_image.aspx?objectId=84116&partId=1&searchText=opalescent+glass&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&numPages=10¤tPage=2&asset_id=391181
m
-
The Christy tazza isn't opalescent but the Graystan vase is. I've lost where we're going with this...
-
well, since those vey nice people in charge didn't follow my request, I will continue wallowing through the treacle. :)
In an effort to rationalize the meanings of words, I've been trying to separate trade names from purely technical descriptive terminology...................partly because in my opinion this is the area that is causing major problems, and partly because I dare say there aren't many people here who are conversant with all of the C19 factory trade names (English, French and States) and who can visualize, at the drop of a hat, exactly what these names look like.
What in essence what we are trying to do is define the make up of Opaline and Opalescent (if indeed they are truly speparate types of glass)...............forget the minor issues i.e. product such as Sowerby's 'Blance de Lait' - opal vitro-porcelain - Royal Worcester Porcelain - Queens Patent Ivory Ware etc.
You only have to recall the endless pages of posts by Loustrousstone and myself some 12 - 18 months ago, to understand how misleading and confusing trade names can be -- I think the debate concerned the Sowerby products of Blanc-de-Lait and Opal Vitro Porcelain. ;)
the Count was using the word 'opaline' - but was technically describing 'opalescent', for the reason that he goes on to mention the sunset glow.
For some reason he didn't say 'opalescent'..........I don't know why, but he didn't, and instead chose the word opaline because maybe it sounded better - he liked the sound - he was corrupting the original French descriptive word 'opalin' - any one of a dozen reasons that we shall now never know.
My opinion is that..........because he used the word opaline whilst describing an opalescent glass, he misled not only future readers of his paper but other workers who maybe followed his example when discussing opalescent glass.
I did comment earlier today that I couldn't see anywhere that the Count had stated that his 'opaline' had been re-heated to produce the pale milky blue colour - and I assumed therefore (dodgy) that re-heating had not been carried out - and assumed that the colour and sunset effects were a natural by product of a metal that had calcined bones (phosphates) as part of their constituent make up.
Is Christine now saying that my assumption is wrong, and that reheating is essential to produce the sunset glow - I really don't know, so am relying on Christine's technical knowledge which is dountless light years ahead of mine.
As I've said, I see the real problem here as one of terminology - we are confusing ourselves by mixing trade descriptions with purely technical words which describe what we see rather that what a factory owner thought might sound attractive to the punters.
Certainly if you read the full description of the Count's 'opaline' and compare with what we know is technically opalescent, then the two are virtually identical.
P.S. No, I wasn't offended m, just *+$*+" off.........I've been in the V. & A. today, so couldn't reply earlier
-
Small problem Paul; the Count was French, so somebody translated him for publication in the American journal
-
o.k................... so we shoot the translator! As I believe we've mentioned earlier, it would seem that the original French word was 'opalin' - as stated by Newman and possibly others - to have been used by Baccarat c. 1823.
If there is a sunset glow, then I'd be tempted to always go with 'opalescent' - no matter what colour - provided there is some translucency (and a lot in those pieces such as Salviati for example).
Alabaster will not fit this description, but is fairly distinctive, so shouldn't be a problem.............other material also lacking a natural glow and opaque in nature is probably best described as opaque glass, whatever the colour.
Certain C19 materials that react to u.v. should be given their correct trade name.
Will someone please confirm if the French 'pigeons neck' and 'soap bubble' colours are the result of a sunset glow?
But Christine, you didn't answer the question..............is opalescent the result of re-heating, or not please??
Feel free to condemn or otherwise the above. :)
-
Paul, I do apologise.
What I was trying to identify was whether Mel's vase was opaline glass. And in my researching info on opaline glass I found a number of discrepancies as we have discussed, so I wondered
a) what the actual description of opaline glass is
and
b) has the description name changed over the years or
has the product changed immensely from when it was first made.
Christine, I don't know - I was just showing references that a museum show of opaline glass from 1840 and it's not opalescent - I thought they might be a solid reference for the term.
I have a question though -
In the exhibition catalogue of 1851(reproduced in CH British Glass) a vase that doesn't look what I would call opalescent although admittedly hard to tell, is described as opalescent (the apparently MW & Co one as discussed earlier but subsequently thought to be Richardsons), and
Roger Dodsworth has referred to that vase as probably being Richardsons on the basis it was '..opalescent glass'. Did Richardsons make opalescent(as we know it) glass in the 1850's? I can't find any other Richardsons glass in the books i have ( not many) that are opalescent. Do you know of any please?
and of course that brings us back to the Art-union magazine of 1847 where it discusses the vases in what I believe are the same range as Mel's and titles the document 'Opalescent glass'.
I do wonder whether the Count's translator used the word 'opaline' as in the French word that the Count had used, but that the English translation at that time was actually opal'escent' as in the English version of opal' ine' i.e opal'like' but it did not necessarily have to have fiery opalescence as we know it to be described as opal'escent'. It merely meant opal -like and could be describing fiery opaline as in bulle de savon or not as in other 'flat' opaline glass, and was an English translation of opal 'ine' i.e in French that might have also meant opal-like.
And over time that word got appropriated for use on pieces that had been reheated and showed a fiery opalescence (as we know the term), and then the French word 'opaline' became general use for a semi transparent glass that has been made using an opacifier.
m
-
is opalescent the result of re-heating, or not please??
Yes but I don't know whether it is true in all cases, but I suspect so.
-
I have quoted below from a Treatise from 1832. (link to Treatise given at the bottom)
It seems to me that what is being described is glass replicating the opal stone, but not using reheating and not producing what we call today as opalescent glass. It seems to me the mix of glass in the batch once cooled and hardened as a vase, gives off the play on colours as a result of the constituents of the batch and is not reheated to produce an opalescent (as we know the word) effect. I'm open to correction here.
Also, the description is given under the heading 'Opaque white glass'. I think opaque is being used as a word to describe any glass that is not transparent. i.e. it is not opaque v translucent v transparent, but merely describes the difference between glass which is transparent and glass which is not. There is no in between (i.e. translucent or semi-opaque) just it is transparent, or it's not. If it's not then call they call it opaque.
This is a 'treatise' from 1832
Source: The treatise on the progressive improvement and present state of the manufacture of porcelain and glass - 1832 (I think it was written by George Richardson Porter , produced for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green )
Page 281
It comes under the header Chap XIII White Opaque Glass. Prior to writing the description I give below, the author gives two formulas for producing white opaque glass from two makers and then goes on to say:
'Fontanieu has given directions for imitating the peculiar lustre of the semi-transparent opal, by mixing 576parts of hi sglass no 8 (Chap VII) with 10 parts of muriate silver, 2 parts of magnetic iron ore, and 26 parts bone ash. The beautiful play of colours exhibited by the "precious opal" is deservedly an object of much admiration, and it has always been a subject of interest to imitate successfully so pleasing an effect.
Ornamental pieces of opal glass have usually been obtained from France, but in their production, of a quality fully equal to these importations, may now be witnessed in the London Glass-works.
The peculiar delicacy and beauty of this glass does not appear while it remains in a state of fusion or at a red heat; and are not fully developed until it is sufficiently cooled to acquire its quality of brittleness.
Other coloured glasses which are opaque, are made by the same processes as are followed by the transparent glasses of the like colours, substituting for the common vitreous base, one of the above described, opaque-white glasses.'
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yr8UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA282&dq=richardson+opal+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XEwCUYO9NKuk0AXq_oGwDw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=opalescent&f=false
m
-
This may help with the opalescence issue, but not with opaline
http://www.patternglass.com/KindOpal/kindOpalHearn.htm
and this
http://www.glass.co.nz/opalesc.htm
The early chappies will be describing the cooling effect version
-
No problem m :)
quote..............."Yes but I don't know whether it is true in all cases, but I suspect so" - this, as we can now see from Angela Bowey's article, appears not always to be true.
However, the following from m does appear to be correct..................quote..............."It seems to me the mix of glass in the batch once cooled and hardened as a vase, gives off the play on colours as a result of the constituents of the batch and is not reheated to produce an opalescent (as we know the word) effect." - but it seems to be true only when speaking of pressed glass.
Those thicker parts of the piece which cool at a slower rate are the areas that produce the sunsect effect - as in Lalique, Sabino, Jobling, and other similarly produced material - and importantly only where the item is made by pressing.
In material such as Davidson's Pearline in Primrose, Blue and Moonshine, where re-striking is necessary to produce the dense opaque creamy rims, the opalescence is seen only in or very close to those opaque extremities - and we are told is produced only by re-heating (so doesn't occur due to cooling process as in the Lalique etc.)
In respect of the many articles on 'opaline' there doesn't seem to be any mention of reheating - or did I miss that?
Is the Salviati re-heated to acquire opalescence, or does that occur simply due to cooling?
I get the impression that 'opalescence has been arrived at via several different processes, although arsenic and phosphates seem to be common denominators.
Trying to cut to the chase on all of this, I think that the nub of the matter is that m was trying to discover if in fact there were two kinds of 'opaline' - one that had a sunset glow, and another that didn't.
In my opinion I suspect not, and that all opaline has a sunset glow, to some degree. Just as a matter of interest, I'll post a pic tomorrow some time of a milky-coloured strongly opalescent stemmed and footed sweetmeat/desert dish, with a folded foot, which might be late C18.
thanks to Lustrousstone for the links.
-
thank you :)
Paul, I'm not sure on your conclusion here
'However, the following from m does appear to be correct..................quote..............."It seems to me the mix of glass in the batch once cooled and hardened as a vase, gives off the play on colours as a result of the constituents of the batch and is not reheated to produce an opalescent (as we know the word) effect." - but it seems to be true only when speaking of pressed glass.'
...I think the two vases I showed from Christy's auction give off an opalescent effect as a result of cooling and of being glass made possibly in the way described in the recipe I linked to.
Also the recipe link quote I gave from the Treatise written in 1832 I think is a recipe for producing that effect via cooling rather than reheating and I suspect that was to do with blown glass not pressed glass. I think :-\
m
-
It wouldn't matter how the glass was made for cooling opalescence to be achieved; it would depend on the formula
-
So would I be right in saying-
1) glass mixed in the batch with a particular type of opacifier will cool to become semi translucent (at varying degrees of translucency)
2) If it does not have the opacifier it will be transparent?
I state the phrase 'a particular type of opacifier' because I wonder if tin oxide used in milchglas and lattimo is what makes it cool to opaque rather than semi-translucent and whether bone ash is the ingredient that gives semi translucent glass it's translucency?
If there is semi translucent glass that is both flat (i.e. no opalescent effect) and another semi translucent glass that displays opalescent effect on appearance, what was mixed in the batch to produce an opalescent effect upon cooling? It must have been something added as otherwise it would have appeared as 'flat' semi translucent glass when it cooled.
I'm still trying to get my head around what appears to me to be transparent glass (say the example of Davidson pearline)with opalescent edges and how that is done.
Is it that something that is in the batch that only when reheated gives the opalescent effect,i.e on the edges?
I'm thinking it must be different to the recipe used to make opalescent semi-translucent glass which appears opalescent when cooled, because otherwise the whole thing would just appear opalescent when cooled. If you see what I mean?
I'm just pondering Paul's Salviati question here where my whole jug just has a faint opaline appearance (very translucent) and opalescent appearance, but in parts is very opaline and opalescent so wondering if in that case the extra ingredient added to make it cool to semi translucent and opalescent also meant that in parts it could be reheated and appear even more opaline and opalescent.
But on Davidson pearline, some of the pieces I've had appear transparent but only opaline and opalescent on the edges by comparison.
I don't know if I've asked those questions very well :-\
m
-
A straight opacifier such as tin oxide does what is says on the tin, makes it opaque, but how opaque will depend on the concentration. Think semi-skimmed milk, i.e., translucent and double cream, opaque. The less opacifier, the more translucent. It's effectively a stable suspension, as a glass melt containing an opacifier will be. That property has nothing to do cooling and will show no light effects because what you have is a powder suspended in a supercooled liquid. There is no chemistry involved.
The cooling type opalescence results from a particular compound (bone ash or/and arsenic I think) crystallising out in the glass when it is cooled very slowly, slower than normal. The tiny crystals reflect the light to reduce the transparency and produce the cloudiness, i.e., translucency, and the opalescent (light reflection, refraction and transmission effects). The thicker the glass, the less transparent it is. This is a physicochemical thing.
The pearline effect is more related to the latter; it is either a reaction that produces a white opaque compound on reheating or, more likely, the reheating causes "something" to crystallise out. The more heat applied the greater the concentration of crystals and the more opaque the glass. The crystals would also explain the opalescence seen at the edge of pearline.
I might not be quite accurate, but that's how it all makes sense to me as a chemist.
-
think I've lost the plot :-\
As mentioned, here is the stemmed bowl-shaped opalescent.......sucket glass/sweetmeat/comfit glass/desert dish/open sugar, or what you will.
Aside from the main part of the stem, the glass is remarkably stranslucent yet still shows the sunset glow strongly. I've really no idea of origin or date, but would assume British made, and in view of the folded foot (maximum of 10mm in places) and snapped, sharp pontil scar with large cyst and high foot, would have imagined quite old (these features would normally be C18 - especially with the gold band.
Might a motto such as this be prompted by a particular type of contents?? Unfortunately, it's cracked, but still of great interest.
Anyone care to venture any thoughts on age or use??
Digging this out made me look at David & Middlemas** - the only book I have specifically on coloured glass, although there's very little in the book about opalescent material, and certainly nothing on C18 pieces.
However, this book does provide the following two sentences.............
"Opaline, in spite of the warm vermilion colour which it reveals when held against a light, does not reflect, and it was best used like porcelain for its shape and the surface which it offered to the decorator. A speciality of the Richardson factory was two-coloured opaline and occasionally parts of opaline jugs and vases are found with diamond or mitre cutting; but the most common form of working the surface was to roughen it to contrast with the polished surface of the painting or transfer prints on the body."
These comments seem to support the idea that opaline, with the vermilion effect, is simply another way of saying 'opalescent glass'. :)
Ref. 'Coloured Glass - Derek C. Davis & Keith Middlemas - Herbert Jenkins 1968. pages 107 and 110.
-
... Hi Paul.S.
This debate has surely raised plenty of questions, ideas and possibilities, all of which are more than just interesting.
I myself however, am still yet to be convinced that opalescent glass and oplaine glass are one the same.
I am not questioning YOU or any other who has replied to this post.
I am simply adding "my bit" as like the rest...
One thing for sure, is that MOST (but not all) opalescent glass will be refered to as such for items which have been press moulded... Lalique: Sabino: Verlys: Etling etc. etc. These very factories named their very own pieces: OPALESCENT GLASS and not Opal-Anything-Else... save for Opalique, but that's another story...
"Opaline" on the other hand, is more often than not, smooth-surfaced and without moulded features etc. (in the main)...
I can think of no opalescent glass vase/bowl etc. by Lalique for example that has been called anything else but OPALESCENT or will display the same finish or the characteristics as glass that has been termed as OPALINE... Both are very different, in their finish and opalescent glass contains no traces of vermilion, as far as I am aware...
Opalescent OR opaline glass (though it may be of the same glass ingredient make-up) is in fact the same colour throughout, and it is through heat control and/or the various thicknesses of the patterns, that the opalescent quailites are controlled and produced and then seen... Same can be said perhaps for all heat-sensitive glass, of which opalescent glass is also a variety of...
There can surely be nothing to dispute that an opalescent bowl by Lalique (for example) is entirely different than an opaline piece, even if the chemical structure of the glass is identical. Both are different in appearance and feel, and so are also both different by name.
The above is my observation and in no way is a contradiction of what others may think or say...
ALL OPINIONS are healthy and should be welcomed, no matter what reference has previously been written, recorded or doccumented.
As for your piece, the gilded words upon the piece together with its shape and form for use "might be" its give-away... A communion cup/drinking vessel perhaps? But again this is only an opinion...
John
-
Paul that is beautiful, really beautiful! - I love it.
Addressing the comments to do with the opaline/opalescence issue and whether or not they are interchangeable terms -
'These comments seem to support the idea that opaline, with the vermilion effect, is simply another way of saying 'opalescent glass'.
'
your reference is from 1968
To that I would add:
- We also have a definition of opaline glass given at the actual time of making early opaline glass that included bone ash as the opacifier and which describes semi-translucent glass with an opalescent effect ( 1834 - the Count's)
- We also have a recipe that described how to make white glass ‘imitating the peculiar lustre of the semi-transparent opal’ on cooling and with the addition of bone ash as the opacifier. i.e. it also describes glass with an opalescent effect (1832)
and we have a description from Sandra Davison of 17th century Venetian opaline glass as opalescent glass -
'Venetian opaline glass of the 17th century was made by using arsenic and calcined bones in the batch. When heated, these materials struck an opalescent white colour.'
But I suspect that it was in the late 1830s when the make up of semi-translucent opaline glass changed -
In The History of Glass (pge 174) Klein/Ward say 'The manufacture of opalines began in about 1810'
I suspect that it was an experiment with bone ash in the batch, that once cooled provided a semi translucent glass, which is what they were aiming for (previously apart from Milchglas and Lattimo the glass seems to have all been transparent glass, notwithstanding Sandra Davison's description of 17th century Venetian opaline glass, which may have anyway been outside the knowledge of how to make, of glassmakers in the early 19thcentury).
I suspect it was a happy coincidence that the result of their semi-translucent glass, because of the bone ash, was opalescence.
Then Baccarat called their new semi-translucent glass 'Opalin', because it resembled the much loved opal stone, kind of like a trade name. Which meant that others couldn't ... so they called theirs 'opaline'.
So at this point, in the early 19th century, blown glass made using a bone ash opacifier in the batch and then cooled, and named as opaline glass, might well have been interchangeable with being called opalescent glass
However... that is when things changed - I don't know dates but will look them up in a mo, but at some point coloured glass became 'de rigueur' and the Bohemian's led the way. The French made a visit to Bohemia to check out the competition and thereafter developed their coloured glass - Coloured opaline glass being a part of that development. I suspect that the colour became more important than the opalescent effect as a seller.
By 1844 we have a dictionary definition of Opaline glass that makes no reference to opalescence but does include using oxide of tin or phosphate of lime in the batch, or bone ash:
'Opaline glass is of a semi-transparent opaline hue, used for various ornamental articles, chiefly for the boudoir. The effect is produced by adding to the best glass a small quantity of oxide of tin or what is better, phosphate of lime, or well burnt bone ash.'
This kind of, in a way, makes it clear that semi translucent glass, (they call it opaline) can be made using tin oxide, but a better effect (i.e the opalescent effect) is achieved if you use 'well burnt bone ash'.
I think it also demonstrates that the make up of semi-translucent (opaline- their description of) glass changed.
And certainly the Clichy book demonstrates that point. The glass moves very obviously from quite translucent glass with an opalescence to semi translucent glass with no glow - I think the pictures through the book demonstrate that.
But by then 'opaline' had become the definition for semi-translucent glass created by the inclusion of an opacifier in the batch and natural cooling to a semi translucent finish whether or not it had an opalescent effect. i.e. it became the fact it was semi-translucent glass created by an opacifier in the mix and subsequent cooling, that became the defining factor for the word opaline glass, not that it also had to have an opalescent effect once cooled to be called opaline.
By the 20th century 1985, we have a definition of opaline glass that does not make any mention at all of opalescence in any way or of what constituent is used as an opacifier (Mehlman)
‘Opaline is a semi-opaque translucent glass, often of “milk and water” appearance or coloured, ...'
But
Admittedly, by contrast Newman's description does talk about the 'diffuse' ness of the glass, and only includes bone ash in his description of the opacifier.
It's kind of as if Mehlman is acknowledging that the make up of opaline glass changed but it remained known as opaline glass, whereas Newman has stuck to what was originally invented as opaline glass, i.e. with an opalescent effect when cooled and using bone ash as the opacifier.
Although that's where my thoughts were at the beginning, or at least that the descriptions seemed to be the opposite way round to those we knew today,and I know you also mentioned early on that the two were synonyms, I'm still not sure we can say that opaline glass is simply another way of saying opalescent glass.
For example -
is all opalescent glass semi-translucent and made with an opacifier in the batch and then cooled to give the semi-translucency and opalescence? I don't think it is, as Davidson Pearline is transparent glass for example.
However, if one was being purist, and disagreed with my description of what original opaline glass was (i.e that the aim was to make a semi-translucent glass, rather than the aim was to make a semi-translucent glass that was opalescent) does it mean that all semi-translucent or translucent glass made using an opacifier in the batch and cooled to semi-translucency/translucency but which does not show any opalescent effect, should not be called opaline glass?
And if so, who's going to tell Baccarat and the authors of La Cristallerie de Clichy?
I conclude that opalescent and opaline are not interchangeable descriptions because
1) I do not believe that in the first instance the French makers set out to make a semi-translucent glass that was opalescent.
I do believe they set out to make a semi-translucent glass though, because prior to that (in the near past century) glass had been either opaque (milchglas or lattimo) or transparent, and they were trying to make progress and make something unique and different.
2) Not all opalescent glass is semi-translucent glass.
3) Using the earliest pure description of opaline glass, the opalescence is achieved by the use of bone ash and the subsequent cooling of the glass. Not all opalescent glass is achieved in that manner, some is achieved by reheating to obtain the opalescent effect.
The only thing one could say is that all opaline or semi translucent glass created using bone ash and/or arsenic (still to be worked out) in the batch and then cooled to display the semi-translucent effect with opalescence, could be described as opalescent glass.
With regards the Lalique discussion, I have no idea how Lalique glass is made. Is it pressed or is it mould blown? If it is made using bone ash in the mix and the cooling method to get the opalescence then I guess it could be classed as opaline glass
so
I suppose (but I could be wrong) -
if Lalique glass is created using the cooling method and an opacifier in the batch (i.e. not by reheating) then yes I do believe using the earliest descriptions of opaline glass, that could be called opaline glass. It is a semi-translucent glass with an opalescent effect.
It doesn't matter whether it is pressed or blown glass it's the make up in the batch and the process of cooling to semi-translucent glass with an opalescent effect that would make it opaline by the earliest definitions. Opaline glass is not always 'smooth' glass, my Baccarat perfume bottle was opaline glass with a molded pattern.
If however someone told me Lalique opalescence was created using re heating then that's different. It doesn't match the early descriptions of opaline glass which are that the opalescence is created using bone ash as an opacifier in the mix and then the effect of the glass cooling.
Is it likely Lalique, Sabino etc made using bone ash in the batch?
If not, then that is a very valid point as to why opalescent and opaline can not be used as interchangeable terms.
'Opalescent OR opaline glass (though it may be of the same glass ingredient make-up) is in fact the same colour throughout, and it is through heat control and/or the various thicknesses of the patterns, that the opalescent quailites are controlled and produced and then seen... Same can be said perhaps for all heat-sensitive glass, of which opalescent glass is also a variety of... '
When you mention '...opaline glass...it is through heat control and/or the various thicknesses of the patterns, that opalescent qualities are controlled and produced...' does your definition of heat control include glass becoming semi-translucent through the cooling method please or do you mean through re-heating to achieve the opalescence?
m
-
OPALINE GLASS
https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1090&bih=614&q=opaline+glass&oq=opaline+glass&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l7.2671.7253.0.7803.13.12.0.1.1.0.101.749.11j1.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.S3dPKd5oXaw
OPALESCENT GLASS
https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1090&bih=614&q=opaline+glass&oq=opaline+glass&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l7.2671.7253.0.7803.13.12.0.1.1.0.101.749.11j1.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.S3dPKd5oXaw#hl=en&tbo=d&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=opalescent++glass&oq=opalescent++glass&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.58192.65024.0.68919.16.13.3.0.0.0.73.676.13.13.0...0.0...1c.1.cOMy8CJU0HE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.d2k&fp=89c9b56917ecdcd4&biw=1090&bih=614
Both are entirely different...
and both use/used/uses entirely different glass working procedures
to acheive their "very" different results...
As for Lalique (Rene)
His OPALESCENT glass recipe was as unique as say that of Sabino,
who used as much as 60% more arsenic in his glass.
R Lalique used the following percentages as folows for OPALESCENT GLASS...
he made no "Opaline" glass.. not once or not ever.
Sand 67
Potash 8.5
Quicklime 5
Soad ash 10
Sulphur (trioxide) 0.16
Phosphorus pentoxide 4
Cobalt (just a trace)
Fluorine 0.4
Arsenic (white) anything between 0.2 and 0.6
Manganise dioxide 0.04
Chlorine 0.1
Aluminium oxide 1.3
Plus... if we look at most glass that is termed as being "Opaline"
it does NOT share the same characteristics as the glass that we term as being "Opalescent"
Both are entirely different. Please see the above links.
There is for example: PINK, GREEN, BLUE, and many other colour varieties of OPALINE glass...
These same colours will not be applied to OPALESCENT glass,
save for description purposes: Blue opalescent or say golden opalescent (for example)
Opalescent glass IS opalescent glass... Opaline is NOT opalescent glass...
Much OPALINE glass will also contain uranium and will glow under UV black light...
MOST OPALESCENT glass will not!
The confusion seems to be be the word: "OPAL"
but that is all.
John
-
'Both are entirely different...
and both use/used/uses entirely different glass working procedures
to acheive their "very" different results...'
When answering the point about Lalique I referred back to the articles that had previously been linked to by Christine to show the descriptors of opalescent glass http://www.patternglass.com/KindOpal/kindOpalHearn.htm
http://www.glass.co.nz/opalesc.htm
‘There are three kinds of glass known as opalescent. One is blue-tinged, semi-opaque or clear glass with milky opalescence in the center. The colour is produced by the slow cooling of the molten glass in those parts that are thick causing some crystallization inside the glass. This contemporary opalescent glass was first produced in the 1920s and 30s by companies in France such as Lalique, Sabino and Jobling.'
Whilst acknowledging as I did earlier, that I did not know anything about the production of Lalique glass, it seemed to me from this description that the method of obtaining the colour in the glass was the same as that described in the early descriptions of opaline glass – i.e. by cooling and that the description of the glass was very similar to early( 1830’s) descriptions of opaline glass.
'The confusion seems to be be the word: "OPAL" but that is all.'
That was not my confusion. :)
I raised a question because the Count’s description of opaline glass (1832) appeared to be describing glass that is opalescent, and then a further description of opaline glass described a glass made with an opacifier in the batch so that when the piece is cooled it becomes semi-translucent and opalescent. So the query was raised regarding
a) whether or not what was currently ‘termed’ and described as opaline glass really was ( as most of it seemed not to be opalescent)
b) had the makeup of opaline glass changed over time
c) whether or not early accounts were in fact describing opalescent glass as we know it today, rather than opaline glass, but calling it opaline glass.
This then led to a discussion of the various descriptions of opaline glass which have been put forth over the last 180 years and whether the batch make-up/method of making opaline glass might have changed over time or had the descriptions themselves changed.
' Opalescent glass IS opalescent glass... Opaline is NOT opalescent glass...'
With regard to the second part of your comment, the Christie’s link I gave earlier shows two large opaline vases which are opalescent, and the link to the book La Cristallerie de Clichy shows early opaline glass that is also opalescent.
And as far as I can ascertain from this thread and the discussions that have been teased out over the thread, it is clear that the early descriptions of opaline glass were describing an opalescent glass. This was opalescent glass produced many decades before Davidson, Fenton, Lalique, Sabino etc.
'Plus... if we look at most glass that is termed as being "Opaline"it does NOT share the same characteristics as the glass that we term as being "Opalescent" '
I think that is the issue here, that in the first instance I queried what the definition of opaline glass was because I wondered if what people ‘termed’ opaline really was defined as opaline glass, as the characteristics between the different pieces being ‘termed’ opaline were so diverse and also appeared to be so different from the 1834 definition of opaline given by the Count.
'Both are entirely different. Please see the above links.'
The problem with giving links to google images is that what is displayed are just pieces that people have described in a certain way. They are not referenced sources and not always what they are described to be. An example being that when I clicked on opaline I found an image of a Lalique car mascot, which I clicked on to discover it was on Live Auctioneers described as Lalique opaline glass mascot.
'There is for example: PINK, GREEN, BLUE, and many other colour varieties of OPALINE glass.. These same colours will not be applied to OPALESCENT glass, save for description purposes: Blue opalescent or say golden opalescent (for example) '
I’m not sure I understand the point you are making. Do you mean that the names for the colours of the glass would be different for translucent glass then for transparent glass please?
- Davidson Pearline was opalescent glass. That was produced in yellow and blue.
- Fenton produced white, blue, green and amethyst as well as canary (see link)
http://reviews.ebay.com/Fenton-apos-s-Rare-Vaseline-Opalescent-Glass-of-1905-1929?ugid=10000000004698827
-Northwood produced blue, white and cranberry opalescent
'Much OPALINE glass will also contain uranium and will glow under UV black light... '
I cannot comment on quantities but I know a lot of opaline glass does not. Looking at the Clichy book and the opaline glass from Mousa and Amiato Antique and also my own collection, although I know that cannot be a scientific method for working out whether much or not opaline glass contained uranium.
'MOST OPALESCENT glass will not!'
Again production numbers are a difficult thing to ascertain, but it seems to me that a few makers produced opalescent uranium glass I believe: e.g. Davidson, Walsh Walsh, Northwood and Fenton
m
-
HI
Re your bowl , " Anyone care to venture any thoughts on age or use??"
These are generally regarded as English and possibly from the North East,they are seen in a variety of colours,sugar bowl is the most frequently used description and they can be found with a variety of motto's , "be canny with The sugar " is commonly seen , they are thought to have been produced in the first half of the 19th century.
http://www.delomosne.co.uk/page36/page30/files/5.147.10%2010cm.html
Cheers ,
Peter.
-
thanks Peter :) Just goes to show that the folded foot can be misleading at times.........we tend to think of this feature not appearing after about 1760/70, but I'm aware, from several authors, that it makes a re-appearance some time around the early part of the C19 - although not quite sure of the reasons for its resurrection. Always possible perhaps that it may have continued on those items where a strenthened foot rim was desirable, or maybe a more localized feature.
-
is it possible if Paul's pedestal bowl is believed to date to the early 19th century, that it is an example of 1830's opaline glass with an opalescent effect?
i.e. an example of exactly what the Count was describing in 1834 as opaline
and what the recipe of 1832 describes as - white glass 'imitating the peculiar lustre of the semi-transparent opal'?
m
-
Bonhams used the term opalescent to describe them and they do have an opalescent effect but I think they are the opaline glass as described.
Any opinions?
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/14080/lot/7/
m
-
I might suggest that Bonhams need to replace their glass expert.............to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in this pic that might be described as a finger bowl. I've seen a lot of finger bowls - although sadly don't have one in genuine opalescent - but have to admit I've never seen/found one with a pedestal stem such as these.
Coming back to Peter's comments, these appear to be either open sugars or related perhaps to some form of sweetmeat dish - but they are attractive.
-
sorry meant to add that, for my money, these have nothing to do with opaline - I see them as simply opalescent.
-
Out of interest, the following entry is in the glossary of Colin Lattimore's book** on pressed glass...........
"opaline: An opalescent glass produced by the addition of cryolite or arsenic to the batch. Appears milky by reflected light and shows many blue and golden tints by transmitted light".
Contrary to my earlier comment re finger bowls, I'd overlooked the fact that I have this opalescent example in turquoise.
Which of the oxides has been used to colour the glass I'm not sure, but it might have been copper, or perhaps the most tinsiest bit of cobalt. :)
Ref. 'English 19th Century Press-Moulded Glass' - Colin R. Lattimore - 1979
-
Paul, thank you for posting the quote /references and your pictures:) both your bowls are just superb.
I don't know if I can agree with his (Lattimore) definition as a current definition. In one sense it is a very 'pure' definition, I think matching the Counts(i.e when opaline glass was first invented and bone ash and/or arsenic were added to the batch as the opacifier, producing a semi translucent glass that was opaline and had an opalescence - see the Count's definition/description and the 1832 recipe)... and so yes I do agree with it in that sense.
However, it does not take into account the developments over time, of 'a glass which has been coloured by adding an opacifier to the batch, such as bone ash or tin oxide or phosphate of lime etc which, when cooled, becomes semi-translucent’ – That is, some of that glass is semi translucent (opaline) but not opalescent depending on what has been added to the batch as an opacifier.
I've based that opinion on the fact I have had a few pieces of French opaline glass which did not display the opalescence, and certainly have opaline glass from other countries that does not either and also the pictures from the Clichy book.
It comes back each time to
- Has opaline glass changed over time in the way it is made?
- Or have definitions changed over time?
- What exactly would be the definition of opaline glass?
It is only my opinion, but from all the pictures and references we have been through, my thoughts are:
a) Opaline glass has changed over time in the way it is made, in that the opacifier has changed. Meaning it no longer always has opalescence, as it did when bone ash/arsenic was used, but is still a 'glass made with an opacifier in the batch, which when cooled gives a semi-translucent effect',
b) The definitions for opaline glass have changed over time to account for this (e.g. Mehlman V the Count)
c) The definition of opaline glass needs to encompass opaline glass which is ‘flat’ i.e. has no opalescence and also that which is opalescent.
But I also have been thinking (and these thoughts I’m sure are going to be controversial and are up for discussion :) )
- Opalescent or opalescence is an effect in or on glass but is not a type of glass.
and that is why I can't find any definitions in books or online for 'Opalescent Glass...'
The reason for the thoughts above are that I have also been musing on the following (again these are just my thoughts and open to correction and discussion :) )
That there are three types of glass created in the batch:
- Transparent (Adjective (of a material or article) Allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen )
- Translucent (Adjective (of a substance) Allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through; semi-transparent)
- Opaque (Adjective Not able to be seen through; not transparent)
So for example;
- flint, or amethyst or cranberry glass or any colour transparent glass would fit under ‘Transparent’
- the examples of milchglass or lattimo or hyalith or lithyalin [ * ] (just a few I could think of) would all fit under ‘Opaque’
- opaline glass would fit under ‘Translucent’
[ * ] Mod: Please see correction comments in post 109 below.
but opalescent glass does not fit under any of the types because it is not a ‘type’ of glass but an ‘effect ‘ in or on glass … so
it can be an effect on or in translucent, or opaque or transparent glass depending on how it is created,
i.e. whether it is an effect created:
- in the batch (the effect seen on some translucent glass i.e. opaline glass (and also girasol which I also think is a type of opaline glass) and possibly also opaque glass made using bone ash. Lalique opalescent glass would come under this I think (**see below).
or
- as an effect of cooling and reheating e.g. on the edges of transparent glass in the case of Pearline,
or
-on glass blown into a raised patterned mould in two layers, and where the outer layer is translucent (opaline) made using bone ash and /or arsenic as an opacifier and so on reheating the outer layer on the raised pattern becomes opalescent.
** Source - ' Rene Lalique & Cie The Complete Illustrated Catalogue for 1932'
In the English translated introduction in this catalogue Gabriel Mourey says
'...Whether he chooses for his material colorless, polished or frosted glass, opaline glass or colored glass (black,smoky,jade-green, sapphire blue, red, rainbow; whether he uses the technique of molded or cut glass, or combines these two processes, his imagination knows no limits....'
In the original French paragraph he calls it '...le verre opalin' - there is no mention of opalescent or opalescence as far as I can find.
These are my thoughts :)
I would welcome contributions and discussions and to whether or not they make sense :)
With regards the definitions of opaline glass over time -
I think it is important to find early descriptions written when the glass was first developed, as well as descriptions over time, and the ‘more recent’ descriptions looking back, if you see what I mean, as there are discrepancies between what is described as opaline glass now and what was then, from the sources we've referenced so far.
(And I have not been able to find an early reference to something called 'opalescent glass' in those sources? or have I misremembered? Have you come across anything called 'Opalescent glass' or is it all 'Opaline glass that has opalescence' type descriptions? )
However,
I have been searching early- mid 19th century French books and I have found another description written in France in 1853
It’s quite a small piece, interesting, but difficult to 'interpret' what is really meant by it:
Source: There were a number of editions of this book called
'Manuel complet du verrier et du fabricant de glaces '
by M. Julia de Fontenelle and Francois Malpeyre
In the one of 1829 there is no mention of opaline glass or opalescent glass except under mention of sapphire blue glass where they discuss in one part about the blue having an opalescence ( I think)
However in the 1853 edition there is a description headed:
'Verre opalin ou opalescent' (Opaline or Opalescent glass)
It reads as follows (translated by Google translate - original below without 'accents' unfortunately)
This is a milk glass resembling the alabaster or opal that has prepared the way ordinary, with the addition of
a greater or lesser quantity of calcined bones.
’
It goes on to talk I think about making opaline uranium glass (I think talking about that uranium opaline glass can be created instead of opalescent opaline glass ...but don't quote me on that as I found it quite hard to understand exactly what was being described)
-
‘ Glass can be manufactured in a top quality with a greenish reflection with the following mixture
calcined bones
yellow oxide of uranium
forge slag
It is claimed that the colored glass mixture with previous change of color under the influence of sunlight and we can prepare a glass of a color more beautiful and withstood the action of the sun by substituting nickel oxide in forge slag’
So it seems to me that, written in 1853 in France, this appears to be describing a type of glass and calling it ‘either opaline or opalescent’. It is the first time I’ve come across a description naming ‘opalescent’.
Still investigating, but I think at the moment I would still call your both your bowls and the pieces from the Bonhams link, opaline glass :)
jmpov though.
French original from book above (missing accents, my lack of keyboard knowledge sorry)
'C'est une verre laiteux ressemblant a l'albatre ou a l'opale qu'on prepare a la maniere ordinaire, avec addition d
'une quantite plus ou moins forte d'os calcines. On peut fabriques le verre d'une qualite superieure avec un reflet verdatre avec le melange suivant
os calcines
oxyde jaune d'urane
scories de forge
On pretend que le verre colore avec le melange precedent change d couleur sous de influence des rayons solaires et qu'on peut prepare une verre d'une couleur plus belle encore et que resiste a la action du soleil en substituant l'oxyde de Nickel au scories de forge'
As I said, all up for discussion :) and these are just my thoughts :)
m
-
Source reference and quote for my comment on girasol glass being opaline - here on the Museo del Vetro website under the heading of Opal Glass
http://museovetro.visitmuve.it/en/il-museo/percorsi-e-collezioni/the-arsenale/the-arsenale/
'Opal glass (Girasol or Sunflower). Opalescent glass with an orange sheen, more matt than opaline, introduced into Murano technology since 1693. This glass is slightly opaque due to the presence of lead hydrogen arsenate crystals in the glassmaking mixture, that due to their size confer an original colour to the glass, which appears bluish when observed under reflected light and light brown, or pink, when observed under direct light. In the 1800s, this type of glass was presented by Salviati & C. at the Industrial Exhibition at the Doges’ Palace in Venice. On that occasion abbot Vincenzo Zanetti wrote “Opaline glass, which after repeated and very expensive experiments was finally obtained in Salviati’s laboratories due to work on glassblowing in all security and a very beautiful quality, was one of the most reluctant to mingle with other colours. In our opinion it must have been so also in the past, as it is true that the ancients knew very well how to produce the lovely opaline paste and wrought objects of diverse forms, but such objects of past ages, which are not found profusely and that are therefore paid fantastic prices, are not pure, meaning without other colours. Well, Salviati was the first to show us this lovely glass merged and decorated with any other paste and even with ruby and with aventurine itself. …” (La Voce di Murano, 18 July 1868, N°. 28, pages 117-119).'
Source reference link regarding the intro from Gabriel Mourey on the Lalique Complete Illustrated Catalogue 1932 (please see English version and French version for my comments above)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AnunJp1VfS0C&pg=PT12&dq=lalique+opaline&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QY4HUaXdEI610QX23oGQAw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=opaline&f=false
m
-
and a good article here on the Roland Dufrenne site which explains the transition from transparent opaline with opalescence to the less transparent over time - the period mentioned being 1820-1860. The pictures speak for themselves and the first picture is clickable so it can be enlarged to show how translucent the early opaline was as well as the opalescence on it.
http://www.rolanddufrenne.com/les-opalines/
Using google translate the translation of the article reads as follows:
'Originally, in ancient times, glass was opaque. From a close look of porcelain, it was used in imitation of some precious stones.
From the fifteenth or early sixteenth century Venetian glassmakers produced a white opaque glass called lattimo inspired the porcelain of the Far East which the method was unknown in Europe.
This glass was obtained by the addition of lime and tin composition.
In the early nineteenth century, appears crystal opal or opaline crystal, more or less transparent, milky appearance soap or obtained by the addition of phosphate of lime (calcined bones).
The crystal created in the second half of the eighteenth century, Vonèche, St. Louis and Montcenis, be the first to make crystal opal, but the first half of the nineteenth century saw the creation of more high-quality crystal, including the crystal Choisy-le-Roi (1820), Bercy (1826), Lyon-Guillotière (circa 1839) and Clichy (1842). The first two produce most of the beautiful opal crystal opal we now call Restoration period or Charles X. The opaline crystal comes in several pastel colors: lavender, turquoise, pink "pigeon-throat", ultramarine blue, amber and green jade.
Glass of water opaline blue (1850)
In 1844 began production of opaque glass with vivid colors (blue flag, green chrysoprase, pink, lemon yellow) plus a semi-opaque white, slightly gray, called "rice paste" or "alabaster" such opaque glass produced by all the major crystal under the Second Empire, is now known as opaline, name and adopted by the widespread trade in antiquities in the early twentieth century.
Manufacture of opal with bright colors reached its peak between 1850 and 1860, it decreased significantly at the end of the Second Empire.'
m
-
Research article and documentation on the making of opaque Venetian glass 15thc to 20thc and the use of opacifiers/which opacifiers were used when.
I've used an automatic translator - it should allow you to click the translate box at the top and do an automatic translation
'Les verres opaques :la technologie des verriers vénitiens (XVe-XXe siècle)'
Authors:
Cesare MORETTI ,
Chemist, Technologist Verrier
S.Vito al Tagliamento (Italy)
Sandro HREGLICH
Researcher
Stazione Sperimentale del Vetro, Venice (Italy)
http://www.verre-histoire.org/colloques/innovations/pages/p202_01_moretti.html
m
-
thanks for posting it m, I'll have a read through tonight
Mel
-
Mel, please see this post on my thread
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,53085.msg309936.html#msg309936
and particularly at the bottom of the post, where I muse about your vase and linked to this one I found
http://d3seu6qyu1a8jw.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/collections/D0/D0312EB9-CC8A-44EB-8B81-F3F08EF8BC45.jpg
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/vase-1457?sm_actor_name=W.%20H.%2C%20B.%20%26%20J.%20Richardson&goto=node/51200&filter=%22bundle%3Aartwork%22&sort=score%20desc%2Cbs_has_image%20desc%2Cbs_on_display%20desc&object=4
m
-
thanks m, just noticed that this thread had moved up again (no notifications) I'll get back when I've caught up :)
-
A correction to my post 102 further up the thread (see quote below from that thread and I've underlined the relevant part). In that thread I mentioned that in my view Lithyalin would fall within the group of opaque glass. This is not true. Lithyalin as far as I can deduce, is an effect on glass of making it look marbled. Originally (again as far as I read), it was done on hyalith glass, but I have also found Lithyalin glass done on translucent glass.
'The reason for the thoughts above are that I have also been musing on the following (again these are just my thoughts and open to correction and discussion :) )
That there are three types of glass created in the batch:
- Transparent (Adjective (of a material or article) Allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen )
- Translucent (Adjective (of a substance) Allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through; semi-transparent)
- Opaque (Adjective Not able to be seen through; not transparent)
So for example;
- flint, or amethyst or cranberry glass or any colour transparent glass would fit under ‘Transparent’
- the examples of milchglass or lattimo or hyalith or lithyalin (just a few I could think of) would all fit under ‘Opaque’
- opaline glass would fit under ‘Translucent’
'
m
-
With reference opaline glass and opacifiers in glass:
Chapter 1.2.3.5 of this book has detailed information on the opacifiers used over the centuries.
Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass - editor Koen Janssens
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9OunNskEvXYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=modern+methods+for+analysing+archaeological+and+historical+glass&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXwJiK7M3MAhVMDsAKHQLLAa0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=modern%20methods%20for%20analysing%20archaeological%20and%20historical%20glass&f=false
see page 31 which should be available to view
m