Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Topic started by: Argonite on March 25, 2007, 07:52:34 PM

Title: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 25, 2007, 07:52:34 PM
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5895 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5895)

This is the link to a very pretty Ink Bottle I have which I am still trying to identify. I thought it might have been Walsh Walsh or Web but it seems more likely to be Whitefriars, possibly from around 1930-50. Any or all help will, as always, be very much appreciated:

Main bottle millefiori canes 4 concentric rings with large centre cane; white, blue, white, red.
Date canes 1,8,4,8 ring # 3. Stopper and bottle neck inscribed ‘61’ or ‘19’. Recessed base.
Stopper central cane plus 3 concentric rings, outer red, two rings white. Stopper shape copies body shape.
Height with stopper: 10 cm (4 inches), without stopper: 7 cm (2 ¾ inches).
Body diameter 6.3 cm (2 ½ inches) at widest point, base diameter 5.2 cm (2 ¼ inches)   

Respect  :D
Roger

Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: vidrioguapo on March 25, 2007, 09:10:13 PM
Have a look at Pat. 9754 in the Whitefriars catalogues - 1972 - 1980.  There's one similar to yours. I am not a weight expert so you will have to judge for yourself.  Emmi
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Lustrousstone on March 26, 2007, 06:44:12 AM
Migfht be better on the paperweight board so they can look at the canes. Moderator...
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: KevinH on March 26, 2007, 03:29:43 PM
Not Whitefriars!

From the photo of the section showing the canes in the base, it appears that there are indeed canes for "1848" but with the "4" not showing. Is that correct? Is the "4" out of view or is it missing? Any chance of a photo of the date canes with the "4" showing?

Also a photo of the base would be useful.

Research has shown (but not to everyone's satiisfaction) that there are no recods of Whitefriars making weights or bottles in the 19th century. However, it is known that the Arculus and Walsh-Walsh companies (Walsh eventually became owner of the former Arculus works) made "copies" of "old" weights and bottles in, at least, the 1920s and 1930s and these had "1848" canes set in them. This was apprarently done to meet a desire at the time by collectors and dealers!

I have not yet checked the canes against other "old English" items so cannot confirm a likely attribution.
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 26, 2007, 04:32:39 PM
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5911 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5911)

Kev - your info is most interesting - this was the track I was going down before I was advised that it was probably Whitefriars !

Anyway, the '4' is offset slightly from the 18 and 8 cane and the '8' in both canes looks like two spots, one above the other.

I have taken some more pictures and put them up (link above) - three shots, one of the date canes from the 'outside', one of the date canes peering down the neck (pos=-5909) and one of the base (pos=-5908). This last image also shows the wear to the base suggesting some sort of 'age' but it could have been done deliberately. The other thing which is 'bugging' me is the small size of the item - the majority of bottles I have researched start at about 5 inches and go up !
Respect, Roger  ;D
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: KevinH on March 26, 2007, 09:28:53 PM
Yes. The "4" is consistent with others, and as is often the case, is set "upside down" or "back to front". The shape of the "4" is one of the key factors in recognising these pieces. The use of two canes together to make the "8" also ties in with known examples from Arculus / Walsh.

I have seen another small bottle of the same structure, complete with the same shape of foot, body, neck and stopper. I have heard of others, and some apparently are even smaller!
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: KevinH on March 26, 2007, 09:43:50 PM
And not only that, but ...

In addition to info in the paperweight literature, British Glass 1800-1914, by Charles Hajdamach, 1991 [ISBN 1 85149 141 4] shows, on page 396, a group of millefiori items. On the left of the group is:
Quote
Small scent bottle with millefiori canes including four making up the date 1848 which matches the design known to have been used at the Walsh Wlash factory in Brimingham in the 1920s; height 4 in (10 cm), Michael Parkington Collection.

That bottle shows all the same features as the one shown here and the other I have seen.

Page 408 of the same book shows an image of a page from a Hill Ouston catalogue of 1934. This has a weight and ink bottle both with false 1848 canes formed in a similar way to the Walsh ones. The bottle is said to match one from early 20th century records and presumed to be from Richardsons.
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 26, 2007, 10:45:49 PM
 ;D Who's the man !
Kev - I have thought all along this was Walsh Walsh and you have confirmed it for me......
and.....dang blast it.....I have the BRITISH GLASS 1800-1914 but had not found the relationship  >:(
Anyway, can only say a very big THANK YOU and leave it at that !
Walsh Walsh it is and that's how I shall catalogue it...
Much Respect,
Roger
 :D
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: tropdevin on March 28, 2007, 12:45:53 PM
I think it is very difficult - maybe impossible - to distinguish Walsh Walsh and Arculus - especially after the point Walsh Walsh bought the Arculus factory.  Arculus made the 'chequer' weights, I believe, but once you get to concentrics, glasses, bottles, jugs.... who knows? 

I will be touching on this, amongst many other things, in my talk at the PCA Convention next month!

Alan

Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Frank on March 28, 2007, 03:43:12 PM
Richardson not Walsh!!
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 28, 2007, 03:58:21 PM
Frank !
Please don't leave me this way... :o
Why Richardson's and not Walsh ?
Your response seems a little abrupt to say the least  ::)
Respect,
Roger
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: tropdevin on March 28, 2007, 04:50:43 PM
Hi All

I find Franks's comment astounding.  As far as I am aware, there is no evidence at all for Richardson using the fake '1848' date canes. Whereas Alfred Noel Arculus is on record as saying he had a Saturday job making paperweight set-ups for Arculus, and putting these fake dates in.  Furthermore, the canes look very like Walsh Walsh / Arculus canes.  So I am 99.9% certain this is not a Richardson piece, but an Arculus / Walsh Walsh one.

Alan
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 28, 2007, 07:27:08 PM
I am still running with Walsh Walsh folks - so until definately 'proven' otherwise, that's where I'm at.... :P
Thanks for the lively debate everyone, very much appreciated.
Respect, Roger
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Frank on March 28, 2007, 08:54:18 PM
As per Hadjamach:

The bottle is said to match one from early 20th century records and presumed to be from Richardsons.

But I might have got it wrong, reviewing all the images. Hill Ouston continued to sell the Richardsons bottle until 1939
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: KevinH on March 28, 2007, 11:08:20 PM
It is true that Hajdamach offers evidence for Richardson using false "1848" canes. However, the bottle shown by Hajdamach (page 408, Plate 372) from the Hill Ouston catalogue differs from that shown by Roger. Roger's has a foot rim with a substantial distance to the lower part of the body, but the Hill Ouston one seems to have no foot, even though footed items are well known in pieces attributed to Richardson. The neck rim in Roger's is thinner, wider and less rouinded than that shown in the book. The stopper in the book example is indeed shaped much like those seen in many bottles attributed to Richardson, but Roger's has a stopper that is not as wide as the neck rim.

In fact in Roger's bottle the stopper seems to be leaning over and may not fit too well. It could be useful to see a photo of the canes in the stopper - it is not unkown for stopers and bottles to get mixed up!

In the book, Hajdamach quotes some cane colour details from an original document that helps to suggest a Richardson link. But the colour descriptions such as, "centre white ruby outside, amber white outside ..." could just as easily describe canes from any "old English maker, including some used by Bacchus!!

I agree with Alan that Arculus / Walsh is not an easy separation to make. I see no reason to think that Walsh would not have used existing cane stocks from Arculus when they bought the company, and therefore cane matching can not always lead to the right attribution. I think Roger's bottle could be either.
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: RAY on March 28, 2007, 11:29:27 PM
if the stopper and the bottle have the same number, it's a match, the grinder's numbered there piece's, as the top's and bottles were always ground for a nice fit, and numbered so not to get them mixed up
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 29, 2007, 09:32:12 AM
KevH: I have posted an image of the bottle+stopper but due to the different lighting conditions this morning the colours appear slightly different !
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5983 (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5983)

The stopper canes are certainly different colours from those in the bottle but both the bottle neck and stopper have been ground to fit and they are very snug ! As Ray suggests, both the stopper and neck have been inscribed with either '16' or '91' (re my gallery image #5893) so I think they are definately made for each other, although the only reference I have seen perports to be from Whitefriars....Hummmmm....I know that early english decanters were 'matched' in this way but usually on the base and not the neck.



I am still swayed toward Walsh and KevH has been particularly eloquent and persuasive toward this end although the item remains 'Unidentified' in my catalogue - but not for much longer I suspect !!!

Viva Debate
Respect,   Roger
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: tropdevin on March 29, 2007, 01:01:41 PM
Hi.  It is unusual to find numbered markings on the neck and stopper of Old english bottles - maybe it was only done for export? I have about 15 bottles - Arculus / Walsh Walsh and Richardson, and none are numbered.  Although people tend to associate footed weights with Richardson, they were not the only ones to have a foot rim: there are a few Arculus / Walsh Walsh weights and bottles with rims, and Richardson weights without.....

I have added some pictures of 1848 dates from Arculus / Walsh Walsh pieces: you will see the design and quality varies!

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane4.jpg (http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane4.jpg)
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane3.jpg (http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane3.jpg)
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane2.jpg (http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane2.jpg)
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane1.jpg (http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/cane1.jpg)
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/1848mess.jpg (http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/rosismum/1848mess.jpg)

Alan
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: KevinH on March 29, 2007, 10:26:52 PM
Quote
I am still swayed toward Walsh and KevH has been particularly eloquent and persuasive toward this end ...
That's kind of you to say so. But I do not feel that I have been persuasive towards a Walsh Walsh attribution. In fact, I said: "I think Roger's bottle could be either." - meaning either Arculus or Walsh Walsh. I am not going with one or the other.
Title: Re: May be Whitefriars ?
Post by: Argonite on March 30, 2007, 12:17:50 PM
 :D
Thanks KevH - I didn't mean to put you on the spot, quite the contrary - meant to say how much I appreciated your input  ;D

I would also like to say a 'Thank You' to all the contributors to this thread and close with
 
Respect,
Roger