Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on April 10, 2009, 11:32:07 AM
-
rather 'dinky' as you can see - only 6.25cms high, and about 8cms. wide. A sort of 'sea green' colour vaguely. Not sure what to call it, but it cetainly looks like a very small bulb vase - the upper sides are not straight enough perhaps for a candle holder. The top is ground, and bevelled both inside and out. No pontil mark of any sort, but what made me buy it was the degree of matt wear on the base - made me think it might have been 30 - 50 years old. Possibly Scandinavian or English, although can't see it in my few books. Wud be grateful for any opinions please - many thanks cheers Paul S.
-
sorry - I had also meant to ask...is this what is technically known as 'optically ribbed'.?? cheers Paul S.
-
Hi Paul,
If you had not given the dimensions I would have said straightaway: bulbvase. This model begins to show up in the bulb catalogues of around 1910 and I have them myself. Always bought in England and also the bulb catalogue is English.
The size however is very small for a hyacinth (when the roots start to grow they have nowhere to go), and for a crocus I can imagine the neck is too wide and the bulb will fall through.
The alternative is that it might be a posy vase. When I started to collect bulb vases I ended up with quite a few of those, till the bulb farmers set me straight.
Your glass question I cannot answer apart from the fact that mine are with dimples, hobnail, plain, optic etc.
Hope all this is of any use.
Patricia
P.S. Afterthought: Dartington made something similar and they were candleholders!
-
Whitefriars did a very small optic-ribbed posy similar to this. I had one in Midnight Blue - might be worth checking against their catalogues...
-
thanks Patricia and Anne - I felt inclined to the bulb idea because the sides of the top were quite strongly curved, and not straight (as I assumed a candle holder wud be). The colour is of course one that has many popular shades in glass manufacture - especially items from the last 50 years.
I will try posting on the Whitefriars site - although if someone has a Dartington book, and they are able to look sometime - wud very grateful. How about if I tried a daffodil or tulip bulb wouldn't they fit.?? Not a posy vase I don't think, they are not usually 'waisted', or are they? thanks again. cheers Paul S.
-
Mine was Paul - see pic below for comparison...
-
I've looked in the Dartington book and there are *similar* items but nothing pictured that is the exact same shape.
If it is by Dartington however we can date it to the early 90s since Mark's book says that the green colour was introduced circa 1990 and wasn't particularly popular so was discontinued within a couple of years.
-
thanks for replies - so posy vases are waisted after all - well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs!. Must admit I wud have had Anne's down as a bulb vase also. Incidentally, Anne, I don't get any idea of how tall your Whitefriars one is. Thanks for looking in Dartington Pip - think I'm disappointed that it might not be at least 30 years old - its just that the base wear seemed to indicate something nearer the 70's ish. Perhaps if the Dartington dropped it from production fairly quickly, maybe its deadly rare!!! I'll put it on the Whitefriars site now, just in case. cheers Paul S.
-
Quite small Paul - about 2½" tall - you can see the catalogue image here:
http://www.whitefriars.com/catalogues/contents.php?id=64
-
It looks like the Whitefriars one Pat. 9471 in colour Sea Green...........the answer is also on .com, with years of production showing under your photo
Emmi
-
Anne, looking at your Whitefriars site I saw things I never knew before.
Of the numbers 9472, 9473 and 9474 would it be possible to give the height of them all (I couldn't read it). And what does F.A.G.B.T.R mean?
Do these catalogues have an index and if so how do they describe these numbers?
Looks like a discovery for me!
Patricia
-
Hi Pat, it's not my site but I can help with some of the info you ask about... :thup:
The F.A.G.B.T.R are the colour codes - usually these are shown in the front of the catalogues but on w/f.com the images are cut up so you don't see that info.
If you use the catalogues over on the other w/f site at http://www.whitefriarsorg.org/mf/ - the catalogues are in the forum and you need to register to view them. The difference is that they are complete page scans so you get all the extra info like the colour codes and they are larger so the sizes can be seen as well. Using both sites together gives you a great resource as the w/f.com one has the search function as well which w/f.org doesn't.
Hope this helps. :rn:
-
On whitefriars.com, the initial catalogues pages which come up, are just photos with a pattern number underneath. BUT, if you click on any photo you will then link into a catalogue page with details of height and colours, at least on most of them!! But whitefriars.org has got a catalogue or two which does not appear on .com. Emmi
-
67 pages on the .com!!
It's going to be a labour of love, thanks Anne and Emmi, my Easter days are filled!
Patricia
-
Make it easy on yourself!!! You have the pattern numbers. On the Home page is a search box. Type in your number and click "go". this will bring you directly into the catalogue page you need.
-
Ah Emmi, what what if the other catalogues have other hidden treasures.....
Catalogues are the spice of life (to me anyway).
Patricia
-
It has just been pointed out to me on .com that this may not be as we thought, as although the dimensions and colour seems OK the actual vase looks a bit squat. I had put that down to the angle of the photograph. Perhaps a new photo from a full frontal profile angle would help in this case. So until a new photo is seen, I will have to withdraw the attribution for the time being. I was a bit hasty, so apologies. Emmi
-
well, I'm all for full frontal pics. - so here goes. sincere thanks for all the trouble people are taking - and yes, probably the wrong angle on the first images. Certainly doesn't appear to be 9471, its much more squat that that particular shape, as mentioned by David Fletcher on wfrs.com. Have measured again (with calipers) and seems to run out at 62mm (2" and 14/16ths in old money) - although I don't know if the 2.5 inches quoted for 9471 was deadly accurate, or an approximation. Are we saying that the colour is o.k. for Whitefriars, but no available similar image to match it with?? I still think the base wear indicates something older that the early 90's. cheers Paul S.
-
Well if this one is Whitefriars it would be older than the 90s, this colour was a late 50s colour. However the new photo still makes it look squat, so maybe you'll have to look at other options. Re: size, a half inch tolerance on a large blown vase would be just about acceptable, but on a small thing like this I think unacceptable. The correct height would have been helpful from the onset. Emmi
-
with all due respect Emmi - I think you shud go back and look at my original figures. I was in fact only 0.5mm out!! (6.25cms = 62.5mm). Not quite sure where you get half an inch from! However, perhaps conclusion is that item is not Whitefriars - so I will carry on looking. My thanks to all of you. Now I must go to bed, as I need to rise at 5 a.m. for the boot sale. good night cheers Paul S.
-
:-[A mistake on my part and the Whitefriars catalogues are all in inches. Even with a tape measure I cannot match them up, number dyslexia? Not helped by the fact I am still suffering the effects of anaesthetic from a minor op I had at the beginning of the week. Perhaps I should just go back to bed and not bother for a while. Emmi
-
sorry to hear you have been unwell Emmi - never mind the mistake - remember 'people who don't make mistakes, don't usually make anything' - i shud know. Just as a sort of postscript to this thread, I was wading thru Gulliver the other day for something Victorian, and I came across an absolute idientically shapped thingy in his book, albeit different colour and slightly bigger. Just goes to show nothing new under the sun. cheers Paul S.
-
I was wading thru Gulliver the other day for something Victorian, and I came across an absolute idientically shapped thingy in his book, albeit different colour and slightly bigger.
That would probably be a bulb vase.
-
thanks for the input Ivo - and just for anyone who may wish to know the details........the reference in Gulliver is.....page 87. Of course the technical differences are that the C19 example has a fire polished rim - has 12 ribs only, and is 9.5 cms high (as opposed to 6.25 cms.) - and different colour. It just caught my eye that the overall shape is so similar. cheers Paul S.
-
And yours has a neck and the Gulliver one doesn't. I would also dispute that the Gulliver one is a bulb vase: it's too short for a anything bigger than a crocus or an acorn and the hole looks too wide for either. I think they are both just small posy or violet vases.
-
I think Christine you are stretching the point about the neck. With the page open, and my vase tilted to the same perspective angle - the neck on mine disappears also. However, you don't have mine with which to do that, so perhaps you have confused yourself. The one in the book is getting on for 4" tall, so I think it is not out of the question that it might support the root mass of a hyacinth. Do you have personal experience of growing bulb varieties in smaller bulb vases?? - If you do, then share your results with us, and tell us the mean or average length of hyacinth roots when grown in smaller restrictive vases. As a suggestion, how about 'bonsai' hyacinths. I wud, however, concede that the top curved part of mine appears shorter - also that my base is less rounded. My original point really tho, was just that the overall shape seemed so similar. My thanks, however, for your critical assessment, what is the point of not being pertinent. Maybe I will try and grown a bulb in mine. cheers Paul S.
-
Maybe I will try and grown a bulb in mine.
It Will Not Work.
-
ughhhhh - thanks Ivo - but if it does, I will send you a pic. Paul S.
-
I think perhaps your remarks were a little uncalled for. My comments were not intended to be nasty. You started pointing out the dissimilarities - I just added another as I saw it.
What I know about growing bulbs in water and identifying bulb vases has been learnt from Ivo and Patricia - they are the Dutch experts in such things, particularly Patricia. You should have seen her upside down, underwater hyacinth! :o
Tiny posy vases are quite common - small flowers like violets and primroses were commonly sold until the late 1960s at least, as I can remember my father buying me violets. Many of the catalogues actually list violet vases. In addition, flower arrangements often consisted of flowers on very short stems so that you had an arrangement of flower heads (a la Paula Pryke although she was the flower guru in the 1980s not the 1890s) rather than flowers on stems.
-
Hi Andy,
Two pictures for you and one for Christine.
I was surprised myself sometimes to see how many and how long bulb roots can be.
This picture is an average size bulb.
The other picture is of a tulip, your type of vase but it all depends on the opening of the vase if it can be used for bulbs.
And Christine, I tried 5 hyacinths upside down this year, only one worked. So did Ivo!
Patricia
-
:clap: :clap: :clap: :)
-
Sorry Paul, these pictures were meant for you of course but I'm so used to discuss bulb vases with Andy that I made a little mistake.
No doubt Andy will enjoy them as well.
Thanks Christine, every time we set up bulbs it's a surprise for us well what comes out of it!
Patricia
-
christine - I wud not have offended you deliberately - I have enjoyed immensely our few exchanges on the GMB, and as you obviously know shed loads more about glass than me, then I apologise for my rather sharp - and sometimes slightly caustic sense of humour. Apparently people who meet me often don't know if I am joking or not.
I look forward to many more of your helpful answers to my glass queries. Hope we are still friends. :kissy:
I though for a moment Christine you were suggesting that Patricia looked better upside down ;)
thanks to Patricia for the pics of bulbs and flowers - very educational to see the vase sizes and length of root systems. I seem to remember from my own days when I took some interest in propogation and gardening etc., that bulbs are either geo-tropic or photo-tropic i.e. whatever position you try to grow them in relation to light or the ground - they will always be influenced by their natural tendencies, cud this be the reason why Patricia had a high failure rate with the upside down ones recently.
I don't speak as an expert in anything - I've given up - its too wearing. Actually, I've almost forgotten how this thread started out - we have deviated so much!
cheers Paul S.
-
Apology accepted :)
-
Christine - I scoured the garden - having seen violets in recent days, but guess the slugs must have eaten them all, but one. Have added some primulas (almost primroses) and added the one violet - so I hope these remind you of the wonderful gifts from your father. cheers Paul S.
-
Thank you :-[