Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Pinkspoons on May 04, 2006, 09:01:18 AM
-
I bought this last week from a very enthusiastic lady in a rural Yorkshire collector's shop - any clues as to who made it?
Just under 20cm high, smokey pale blue colour, polished pontil. Hardly any wear to the base.
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/beakedvase.jpg)
These pop up occasionally on eBay as Whitefriars... ...but then what doesn't these days? :lol: I had a quick look through the catalogues and it doesn't correspond with their beaked vase pattern - just to double-check.
I thought possibly Scandi when I bought it - but not Holmegaard (their beaked vases are a lot tubbier around the bottom and the blue is the wrong shade).
-
Well I'd say it is Whitefriars. Pat. 9556 in Arctic Blue. I have a whole gaggle of these including Arctic Blue. They were hand blown so sizes vary and range from about 7.5 inches to 8inches with varying girths. It's what I really like about them , the difference in sizes...each one is individual. Sometimes the beaky bits are very even, in height, sometimes one is more elongated. So I would say YES it is W/F/ (hope I don't get egg on my face!!!!!) Emmi
-
LOL! I was just typing that it might be arctic blue, and I noticed that Emmi had just replied...beaten to it! :lol:
-
I'm not sure - in the WF catalogue photo the vase shape is quite organic and flowing, whereas this one has a blockier feel towards the bottom of the vase.
Although, as you say, they were hand blown, which could account for shape irregularities. The colour is very much like arctic blue, though (working from memory, anyway).
-
:D:D:D
There's a post wayyyyy back, where somebody in the know - (it might have been Patrick Hogan or Adam D.) describes watching these being swung around in the air in order to form their shape. :shock: :shock: :shock: This may account for inconsistency in dimensions. :lol:
:idea: It's somewhere between me registering and you registering, Nic. :!:
Do you remember it, Max? 8)
-
Nic,
hi, I thought the blockier shape of the base looks more like some Per Lutken pieces I have seen. Maybe another avenue to investigate?
Lou*
-
I don't think that Holmegaard is responsible for my vase - HG rarely used polished pontils except on tableware, and the blue isn't a Holmegaard blue - it's too smokey.
Lutken beak vases for HG look like this:
AUCTION (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7409720411&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1) Mod: Dead link
Thanks for the suggestion, though. :D
-
Ooh, very nice.
But they all still seem to have quite curvy organic lines.
-
Hi again,
I have seen different designs by Per very much in the style of yours. That base just doesn't look right for WF. I know every piece is hand blown and subject to varients, but yours seems too different to me.
I don't want to rock the boat, just stating an opinion.
Lou*
-
It's okay, Lou - I wasn't on the offensive; I'm not 100% this vase is WF, but it does fit that stable more than it does Holmegaard in terms of colour, shape (kind of), and finish to the base. Most Lutken vases are flat-polished, and Holmegaard's aqua blue is pretty consistant throughout the years (except for a few varying shades with some HG pressed glass I own, but the glass is brighter, rather than smokier).
But I'd be glad to be wrong - I collect Holmegaard far more obsessively than I do Whitefriars. :lol:
Example of colours - Holmegaard Aqua on the right, beaked vase on the left. Don't have any Whitefriars in Arctic Blue to compare it to - I did have a duck, but I sold it. :(
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/beakedvase2.jpg)
-
Nic? Is that an optical illusion, or is the glass at the base of the beaked vase on the left (the same one as you started the thread with) opaque and not clear/tinted??? :shock:
-
Optical illusion. I thought it looked opaque in the photograph too! :lol:
-
Whoa! That's an amazing optical illusion then. I can't look at it anymore, it's doin' me 'ead in. :lol:
-
Crikey, I had a shock when I saw the 'opaque" look. I agree yours looks a bit bottom heavy, but I have seen the W/F ones on occasions look VERY similar. However, Nic, it's your vase and you are handling it etc. so maybe your instincts are right. Dunno. Still looks very W/F to me. colour is good, height is good, pontil is good so.....? But we all know that there was a lot of Scandinavian influence during Baxters early days at Whiteriars and vice versa, but I've had a lot of Holmegaard light blue glass and generally it has seemed a bit brighter in tone than Whitefriars Arctic Blue. Very subtly so, but there is a difference. Maybe you'll have to put it aside for a while until you have a similar item to make comparisons. Emmi
-
The variance in the thickness ia a bit more than you would expect for hand-blown variations, so it is certain to be a different hand and probably a different design. Glassblowers might look like that are moving wildly at times but they tend to produce incredibly consistent results. Look at it as a dance of creation.
-
I seem to have a habit of picking up bits of glass which really should be Whitefriars, but isn't quite right (like the optic rib vase in the wrong shade of blue not long ago).
But I agree with Frank - the differences are probably too great for it to be the same pattern - or if it is, then it's a dodgy second. :lol: But it was only £6, and I bought it because I quite liked it.
And now I have an excuse to hunt out some WF in Arctic Blue. :twisted:
-
I still think it's Whitefriars. 8) The weight of similarities to WF is greater than the weight of the disimilarities IMVHO.
How about you stick it on 'Is It'? Perhaps Patrick or someone will be able to shed a little more light?
-
Consider it done. :D
-
The weight of similarities to WF is greater than the weight of the disimilarities IMVHO.
Mediaeval solution: weigh them all. If the piece is within the normal weight range we declare it a true WF, if it is too light we call it a witch.
-
You're not setting fire to my poor little vase, even if it does turn out to be a warty wizard... :shock: Trial by water is okay, though, as long as you dry it properly afterwards.
PS: Hurray, someone who spells 'mediaeval' properly!
-
Both spellings are correct written, but in typed form it should used the combined form of ae thus Mediæval.
-
:D:D:D
I've searched and searched, but I can't find the thread which describes these vases being swung over the maker's heads! I'm pretty sure it was about the same time as Adam D wrote all those amazing descriptions of pressed glass making and the double-melting thing, but I've read them all again (- well worthwhile!) and can't find it. :cry:
Nigel Benson once described a "rule of 3", for use in identifying things. If it has 3 features that are absolutely "right", then it's probably what you think it is.
That opaque base had my brain screaming "Flygsfors" at me. :shock: :lol:
-
Nic, for what it's worth, colour looks right for WF Arctic Blue from where I sit too. But I've never seen the beaked vases in the glass.
Cathy B
-
I've searched and searched, but I can't find the thread which describes these vases being swung over the maker's heads! I'm pretty sure it was about the same time as Adam D wrote all those amazing descriptions of pressed glass making and the double-melting thing, but I've read them all again (- well worthwhile!) and can't find it. :cry:
It might have been a Cafe entry, and has since been lost to the ether, which is a shame. :(
-
check the archives too...
-
The opaque look of Nic's second pic is just the effect of some backlighting due to the angle of the daylight coming from his window.
I am still unable to access Emmi's tinypic.
Fortunately Terry in US could, so sent it to me and I have re-hosted it. I hope you don't mind Emmi. Assuming that others are still having difficulty, here it is
- and shows a surprising amount of variation:
I am inclined to agree with Max and Emmi on this piece.
-
:D :D :D
I'm sure it was pre-cafe days, but may have been lost one time the site went down, which was what inspired having an archive section in the first place. :cry:
Anyway, it was an excuse to rummage in the archives - a habit I strongly recommend! :D
-
Hi Peter,, that's fine with me re: the photo, no problem at all, wonder why though it wasn;t working for some people? Likely to be something I did or didn't do, but usually they work out OK. Thanks again for doing it. Emmi
-
What an interesting thread. :lol:
A thousand thanks Peter, for posting the photos. For someone like me :oops: an invaluable insight into variations...............and as they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. :lol:
Again, thank you.
Thanks too Nic. Great vase btw. I love the colour too.
-
Thanks for reposting Emmi's photo Peter, I tried it several times and couldn't see it before.
For my money, Emmis photo is conclusive evidence that Nic's vase is WF. That shade of blue is quite particular, isn't it? Really unusual hue. I know what Sue meant about Flygsfors too...the clunky bottom (a bit like my own :wink: ) had me thinking about Scandi too before.
Yippeee for the GMB pooling of information! I'm glad Nic's vase didn't turn out to be a 'witch'. ;)
-
Another little word about colour...to my mind the Holmegaard blue is more similar to Whitefriars Sapphire Blue. Arctic Blue is fairly easily recognised on these beaked vases and teardrops, but on more dense items say Ducks or those bubbled pin bowls, it can sometimes be difficult to ID the colour, and certainly from a photo even more difficult. I've got an 8" Arctic Blue pin bowl which because of the thickness of glass, looks identical to an Indigo Hooped vase...but the pin bowls were not made in Indigo, so it can't be!!! Hey Ho!!
-
Arctic Blue and Sapphire Blue are very similar, but the latter is a little closer to an electric blue - at least on the one Sapphire piece I own (a 9353 Curtain Vase - which is unfortunately a little too thin to photograph for direct colour comparison).
That shade of blue is quite particular, isn't it? Really unusual hue.
Unfortunately not - I've just been rifling through my HG bits, and found a small piece of pressed glass in an almost identical shade. :? But as far as I know, HG rarely used their pressed glass colours for blown glass - I've a few pieces of pressed glass in odd colours.
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/pinkspoons/beakedvase3.jpg)
(Edit: I've just found another identical pressed candleholder in a colour very like Sapphire! :lol: )
-
:o I think Whitefriars Sky Blue looks a dead ringer for Whitefriars Sapphire Blue in some lights too.
God! It's enough to drive ya mad isn't it?? :lol:
-
Nic, have a look at the Circaglass website....it's on the links section of Whitefriars.com. Go to Whitefriars section two and there's a ruby beaked. Has a bit of a chubby bottom like yours (the glass I mean) and a rather elongated beaky bit. Just to highlight the variations. I am not commenting on your upload on the .com site, as I've said it all here I think.