Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: josordoni on April 15, 2007, 05:47:43 PM
-
This is charming, the pink makes we think of France, but could it be elsewhere? And roughly when do you think? The shape of the bowl is quite neat , but the stem and foot have been put on not exactly roughly, but not precisely either. The bowl is really very thickly made, and the glass quite heavy.
The pink is cased in clear, and the casing has a fair few bubbles in it, and is showing a couple of tool marks just above the bulb at the bottom of the bowl, rim shows a slight bulge inwards, the baluster stem is milky white, and the conical foot has been separately applied and is a milky opalescent. White stem projects into the cone of the foot as a small dome. My blacklight isn't working at the moment, so I don't know if it fluoresces or not.
Whole thing is 5.25 ins 130 mm.
goblet:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6493
base:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-6492
Thanks for any ideas....
-
The italians and the Swedes have been known to make pink opaline, (I don't know about the French) but this one seems lacking in finesse so I would guess a "studio" piece.
-
Thanks Pete... you make a studio piece sound sort of second class! I always thought Studio glass was posher than factory made glass?
???
-
Just different that's all. To be judged by different standards. More emphasis on artistic expression, less on technical perfection. Making stems is highly specialised. Most Studio goblets lack finesse.
Difficult to ID even with a legible signature - impossible without any mark.
Sorry
-
Oh don't be sorry! I dashed off the reply too quickly, what I meant was that different terms can mean different things to different folks, and I wondered if what you meant by Studio glass was different to my understanding of the term. It was your description as lacking in finesse that threw me.
I have no idea of who or where this came from, but you not knowing either is no problem! It is sitting near the computer in case a sudden flash of inspiration might hit me, but it hasn't so far ... 8)
-
Looks very slightly wonky in the pic ...but maybe the angle of photo ?
Also the stem is a little fatter than normal but if this is a studio piece then its actually very good.
Making stems is highly specialised. Most modern studio goblets are very amateurish in technical terms.
It could Murano (which is effectively studio production). However, if by a maestro you would expect better so maybe a trainee. I have a stem by (Murano trained maestro) Franco Toffolo and it is a joy to hold and to behold.
-
Looks very slightly wonky in the pic ...but maybe the angle of photo ?
yes, that's my wonky tripod...
Also the stem is a little fatter than normal but if this is a studio piece then its actually very good.
Making stems is highly specialised. Most modern studio goblets are very amateurish in technical terms.
It's really quite a chunky piece all round. the glass is really thick to the bottom of the bowl, The approx diameter of the outside is around 2.5 ins, the inside is only 1 inch.
It could Murano (which is effectively studio production). However, if by a maestro you would expect better so maybe a trainee. I have a stem by (Murano trained maestro) Franco Toffolo and it is a joy to hold and to behold.
No I don't think it is a maestro's work. It really isn't anywhere near fine enough for that. The way that the opalescent foot has been applied to the milk glass stem is not finely finished, no maestro would have allowed it out like that.
-
100% Italian, either from Florence or from Murano; Nason jump to mind again. It is a production piece, not Studio.
-
Thanks Ivo.
-
Ivo, what sort of time frame would you put on this, please?
-
1960-s give or take 5 years.
-
Thanks Ivo.