Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Tigerchips on July 22, 2007, 12:01:27 AM
-
I got a vase yesterday with Rd No 543290 etched (I think) on the bottom, it's hand blown and the design seems to date to the early 1900's period.
It's chipped so probably won't be worth a great deal.
Photo's later.
-
The Glass Association Blue Book doesn't list that number TC, but has 543227 on 04/06/1909 and the next entry is 543329 dated 05/06/1909 so you can pretty much date it to either of those dates. I can't find who the design is registered by though. :-\
-
Now that is a surprise, maybe it isn't a glass company registration number?
Here it is, told you it was odd. ;D
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10011/Picture_49740.jpg
I'm not sure if it has a second use as the vase could easily be turned the other way and used as a stand for something. There's some wear on both rims.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10011/Picture_49741.jpg
This shows a few oval cuts or polishing's around the vase. The rim has then been folded over this cut/polished pattern, neat.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10011/Picture_49745.jpg
16 raised ribs on the vase (inside and out). That jagged effect is an optical illusian.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10011/Picture_49742.jpg
Neatly snapped off pontil and 16 ribs on the base.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10011/Picture_49743.jpg
Registraion number 543290
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10011/Picture_49744.jpg
It's relatively light in weight for it's size, though it's not very thick glass.
-
I would suspect it was inteded to be flat top up and came with something else so the pontil was covered
-
Hi
Could well be it was designed to work both ways up. It was very common in the Victorian era to make vases that could be turned over to act as a base for a dessert/fruit bowl/punch bowl.
Regards
Hazel
-
Perhaps the form was registered, rather than the material? The Patents Office in Aus had a different classification for 'Ornaments'. Just a possibility and may be well wrong. :D
-
Cathy, it could well be one of those things that was made in more than one material, e.g. my mother has an equinox vase in lustre pottery - identical in shape and size to my glass Bagley version.
The RD no. is part of the block allocated to non-textile designs according the National Archives catalogue (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=2360316&CATLN=6&accessmethod=5):
Subseries within BT 53 Non-textile Registrations
Scope and content Designs 539430-544002
Covering dates 1909 Mar. 23-June 16
Availability Open Document, Open Description, Open Immediately
Held by The National Archives, Kew
As it's not listed on Great Glass or in the Blue Book it's either a non-glass registration or it's been misfiled, which the NA says can happen. The only ways to find out for sure is either if someone could check on a visit to the NA at Kew, or to buy a copy of the details via the NA site (not a cheap option!)
TC, I'd agree with Hazel & Frank that yours is probably part of a set which would most likely have included a large bowl to sit on top of the stand, or the stand could be up-ended and used as a vase alongside the bowl.
-
First of all, apologies for not replying sooner, couldn't think of anything to say other than thank you.
Secondly, double apologies, as I Googled the registration number and found nothing, I obviously must have miss-spelled the registration as I have found something this time.
Whitefriars.com (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tP6Fr2yS4cgJ:www.whitefriars.com/isit_contents.php%3FID%3D4271+%22reg+no+543290%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk)
And here's the Pattern Number 916
http://www.whitefriars.com/catalogues/contents.php?id=1532
Third apology, I though it might be Whitefrars when I bought it but I looked at the labels on the WF site and no mention of registration numbers so I didn't look at the catalogue's. :-[
Anyway, there's still a chance that it is a copy from another company. The height of mine is just over 7 inches tall.
-
TC — Definitely WF.
The long-established and ridiculous ignoring of WF registration numbers by both reference books' authors and by collectors is just inverse snobbery. There is no other explanation. Same applies to the long-standing failure to count ribs, pattern repeats, and other moulded characteristics.
Fortunately both here and in the USA, registration numbers are now regarded as key identifiers by those looking for accurate attribution. Both of the new generation of specialist publications, Reynolds and Gulliver, rely heavily on them.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Yay! well done TC, so it is a standalone piece. But what about that snapped pontil...? >:D
-
Maybe they didn't polish the pontils on some of the older pieces.
-
Or it was a second, before reaching finishing. You said earlier it was folded over after cutting polishing... not possible. So it was mould blown for the ribs and folded hot.
-
Brilliant work TC, and isn't that extraordinary that reference books would ignore WF registration numbers!
-
Perhaps that's something that needs to be added to one of the Whitefriars sites if they aren't there already. :)
-
Or it was a second, before reaching finishing. You said earlier it was folded over after cutting polishing... not possible. So it was mould blown for the ribs and folded hot.
My lack of understanding of glass making presumedly. Are you saying the oval bits are moulded? I also thought they might be trapped air bubbles but how would they trap them like that, they are flat.
I was not aware that Whitefriars sold seconds.
-
Photos of a nice green example. RD number seems to be engraved rather than acid etched.
(Permission for the re-use of these images on GMB granted by Margaret Maxwell).
-
I have one of these, yet to be photographed, in jade uranium glass with the rd no, but without the ribbing and taller... Skelcher postulates that mine is Stevens and Williams
-
Just dropped in after a long gap !!
These are clearely identified in the Whitefriars exhibition catalogue edited by Jackson and published by Dennis page 126, plate 117, item iv.
It is also in the Museum of London book in the reproducton of the cataogue pages.
Just to be my normal contentious self, I have always known this vase as ID'd through its registration number.........by, and through, other Whitefriars collectors and dealers many years ago - before all the books noted above :)
It has been discussed online before, not sure if on these boards, or on W/F's dot com. I remember commenting on the thread and saying that it was designed by a gentlemen from Hammersmith. Therefore, since he designed it (probably), and certainly owned the registration, he was able to sell to a number of companies - Powell and S&W being two of the known ones.
Sorry, the name has long since escaped my little grey cells ??? ::) However, it was Miles Hoole who did the work in the Kew Archives :)
Nigel
-
Here is the Stevens and Williams version, sans ribbing, plus 2 in. It is in the 1923 catalogue as 53254 and called a Jacobean vase. The design (presumably just the shape and the folded rims) was by Thomas Carnie West and registered on 5 June 1909.
-
And a clear version in the database too:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-17954
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-17953
Christine, I'm confused. Your S&W has the same RD no as those said to be Whitefriars... how can this be? Was the same vase made by both glassworks to someone else's (Thomas Carnie West?) RD? And who was Thomas Carnie West?
-
I believe the Whitefriars ones dont have the RD mark the S&W do or so i was told several years ago .
I have one clear the other Aubergine .
-
They all seem to be marked; that's what started this thread many moons ago
-
No i have had more that are not marked than are , only one of the two i have now is marked and i know Ray Annenberg has had unmarked ones we have been comparing these for a very long time trying to get an answer and they have been discussed on one of the Whitefriars forums , as i live in Whitefriars land they are not that rare and turn up in the charity shops now and again and at local fairs .Honest Guv i dont tell porkies . Well only to solicitors . I can take the vases to Cambridge in February if anyone is intrested ?
I believe Patrick can add to this when he gets back from the USA .
-
I agree with John, most of the transparent, ribbed versions are not all marked.
As for Anne's confusion earlier - from my recent contribution:
Therefore, since he [Thomas Carnie West] designed it (probably), and certainly owned the registration, he was able to sell to a number of companies - Powell and S&W being two of the known ones.
Nigel :)
Edited as per Christine's next comment below. N.
-
I think you missed out a word
I believe the Whitefriars ones dont all have the RD mark
The unmarked ones were probably made after the registration had expired, which may have been in 1926 if the period was only 15 years
-
You are quite right Christine, Thank you :)
I have edited my previous post above to read properly, but left the one you quoted.
Nigel
-
Hi Nigel , just as a matter of interest can you think of any other Whitefriars items that have a RD mark before they purchased their first sandblaster just before they closed in 1980 ? .
-
As for Anne's confusion earlier - from my recent contribution:
Therefore, since he [Thomas Carnie West] designed it (probably), and certainly owned the registration, he was able to sell to a number of companies - Powell and S&W being two of the known ones.
Nigel :)
Ahhh thanks Nigel; do we know who Thomas Carnie West was though, or is he another of these mystery men we keep finding?
-
Just noticed this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=271137274397 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=271137274397)
.....their first sandblaster.....
I do wish you wouldn't refer to your/our dear friend Ray like that John ;D Somehow I bet you what that reg mark is though don't you John boy??
Lastly, yes Anne, "another of these mystery men" !!
TTFN. Nigel
-
Can i have a glass of whatever that is Nigel . ;D ::) :-X