Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on May 13, 2013, 02:45:13 PM
-
I suspect this is a 9022 - just that it seems noticably different from here.....http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,39591.msg219283.html#msg219283.....
especially the side-on view which looks quite different - would there be this much variation? The ring, however, is very much a W/Fs sound.
This one measures 10.25" in diameter, and grateful if anyone will confirm one way or the other - thanks for looking :)
-
Looks good for the lotus bowl, this one in sea green 10" though the foot looks a little narrower on yours? this one is 3" across and about half inch high.
Sure its only a variation and pretty sure both are Whitefriars.
https://picasaweb.google.com/107067405711297858658/WhitefriarsGlassSeaGreenLotusBowl02?authkey=Gv1sRgCIrg-o_suMmHiQE#
Chris
-
thanks Chris - they probably vary more than you think, especially the foot. It seems to be a bowl design I've found more commonly than any of the others (perhaps about 4 or 5 examples). I always reckon it's the 'ding' that gives them away - I like that sea green colour. :)
-
Hmm,
I think you'll find that they are different bowls from the same series and not a variation. The series ranges from the wide open lotus flower (this current thread) through to the bud of the flower, which is of course a vase. All have the name Lotus attached to their description.
The bowl shape in the linked thread is the next to open stage, which accounts for the different foot.
Nigel
-
Hi Paul, can you confirm the dimensions of yours the only one I have now is the one in the link which is is 10" across and 2" high the foot 3" across and only half an inch high.
I know there are 3 different bowls Nigel the shallow 'open' one which I am sure mine is? another the 'middle' stage which is taller with a much bigger foot both with the pattern number 9022 and off course the 3rd one 'closed' which as a different pattern number 8972 and I think 2 vases 8974 and 8971
A permanent photo here which may make it easier.
-
thanks for looking Nigel..........mine is 10.25" across - the foot is 3" diameter - and height is 2". This is the only one I now have Chris, unfortunately, so nothing else to compare it with.
-
meant to add that the foot of mine is 1/2" high.
-
Pretty sure Paul they are both the shallow 'open' one? IMHO.
Have you got the Jackson book plate 118 page 126 shows the 3? bowl versions.
Chris
-
If they both have the same catalogue number, what is a 9019?
-
At the William Morris Gallery in Walthamstow — well worth a visit — and it's free and there's an excellent cafe — there is a small display of Powell glass, typical of the glass sold in Morris' Oxford Street shop. On the bottom shelf are two examples of this Lotus bowl in Cloudy Green.
Also on display is a flint version of a water glass designed by Philip Webb for William Morris and made by Powell, shown in sea green in Jackson, Plate 1(i), p97. I found Jackson slightly confusing in the editorial by Peter Rose on p12, where he identifies Philip Webb as the architect of the Red House. This was a reference to Morris' home in Bexleyheath, not the glassworks in Stourbridge with the same name.
Bernard C. 8)
-
thanks Bernard. Haven't I seen/read somewhere recently that the William Morris Gallery at Walthamstow has had a recent substantial make-over, or something similar?? Being keen on the Arts & Crafts and Morris, not sure why I've never been, and it's probably only about 40 miles distant.
Understand your comments about the confusion in Jackson. By way of possible explanation for what may seem to glass collectors as a less than clear statement, we might perhaps remember that Leslie Jackson's book was intended as a guide for the Powell/Whitefriars public exhibition in Manchester and London. In view of the massive Morris/Arts & Crafts interest of recent decades, Peter Rose may well have assumed, that many people would automatically know that Webb was the architect of Morris' Red House in Bexleyheath. He would probably be correct also in assuming that few visitors to a public exhibition on glass, would have any knowledge of a glasshouse of the same name, in Stourbridge.
In view of this situation, Peter Rose may well have considered it un-necessary to clarify his statement. Of course, it may just as easily have simply been that as Webb had nothing to do with Stourbridge, then Rose didn't consider anyone could be confused :)