(http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/normal_DSCF1281.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/DSCF1281.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/normal_DSCF1283.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/DSCF1283.jpg)
(http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/normal_DSCF1282.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/DSCF1282.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/normal_DSCF1285.jpg) (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/albums/userpics/10318/DSCF1285.jpg)
Click any image to enlarge.
H. 5" 12.7cm, d. 6¼" 15.7cm, foot d. 4¾" 11.8cm, w. 2lb 9¼oz 1170g.
Help please. After spending some time going through the excellent collection of Whitefriars catalogues on W/F dot com here (http://www.whitefriars.com/catalogues), the closest match on the cut pattern I could find was a C295 Rose Bowl here (http://www.whitefriars.com/catalogues/contents.php?pageNum_catalogue=5&totalRows_catalogue=308&id=9730). The only difference is that the C295 pattern shown has two angled cuts each way within each diamond, dividing it into nine, whereas my larger bowl has three each way, dividing the diamond into sixteen.
Was this typical of Whitefriars cut glass patterns — i.e. that some patterns were modified in this way to suit the scale of the piece?
Another possibility is that the pattern was modified just enough to satisfy a demand for exclusivity from a trade buyer such as Marks and Spencer (known for demanding exclusivity from as long ago as the 1930s — see Baker & Crowe).
... and, of course, I could have completely missed my bowl's pattern in my trawl through the catalogues!
Your views please.
Thanks for your interest,
Bernard C. 8)