Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: albglass on September 23, 2011, 01:07:33 AM

Title: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: albglass on September 23, 2011, 01:07:33 AM
Hi, I thought this was a Royal Brierley studio pieces, since the shape matches the 5882 flower bowl shown in www.great-glass.co.uk/library/lib2aa.htm   The color is a deep blue that looks black on the inside.  What gives me pause is that it is not signed on the bottom.  It looks like there may be an H scratched on the edge of the bottom, and maybe an impressed C which could be a B if I use my imagination.  Were any of the Royal Brierley Studio pieces unsigned?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: jakgene on September 23, 2011, 01:25:41 AM
Sure looks like Royal Brierley Studio to me

I have had a small baluster? (think that is the description ) vase of theirs which was not signed, the same colour as yours. I currently have 3 of the Pink in different shapes - all of which are signed. One of them is the exact shape and size of the blue one I had so I know it was right.

Not sure why some are signed and some not - mine didn't look like a second in any way.

Nor sure if that helped at all - I suppose the quick answer is yes - some of them are unsigned  :D

JAK
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: albglass on September 23, 2011, 03:37:18 AM
Thanks so much, JAK.  The few I've seen were signed, so I couldn't be sure.  It is good news to hear that unsigned pieces are not unusual! 
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: Paul S. on September 23, 2011, 07:51:20 AM
try the GMB search using.........'Michael Harris studio for Royal Brierley'......you will find three separate useful and interesting entries - although most of the pics. will have by now disappeared.         I also like this particular output, and have so far seen them in the deep blue, black, the pinky red and white  -  I don't know if there were additional colours. :)
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: flying free on September 23, 2011, 07:58:36 AM
I had a gorgeous simple contemporary shaped bowl in turquoise - sold it and regretted it since.
m
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: glassobsessed on September 23, 2011, 08:05:18 AM
Yes, definitely Royal Brierley Studio range.

They are never signed, marked yes (acid etched I guess) but not signed. By definition signed would require it to have been engraved by hand with a signature and not a makers mark.

John
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: chopin-liszt on September 23, 2011, 01:47:29 PM
Absolutely correct, and a particularly beautiful example.  :smg:
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: Bernard C on September 29, 2011, 11:11:45 AM
...   Not sure why some are signed and some not - mine didn't look like a second in any way.   ...

JAK — The usual reason in respect of the main glassworks that usually marked glass was not that the piece was a second but that it was part of an order from one of the trade buyers that didn't want their glass signed, of which there were quite a large number.   Examples include John Lewis until quite recently, Liberty & Co.,  and Marks & Spencer.

This is the fifth or sixth time I've said this on the GMB — averaging out at roughly once a year back to 2005.   Do I need to make a diary note to mention it again next year?   ;D

Bernard C.  8)
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: jakgene on September 29, 2011, 12:23:36 PM
 >:D Very probably Bernard - the way my "Oldtimers" is kickin' in!   :ooh:

Sorry, but It is not a question I have seen mentioned before - but have only been on the board for about 2 years, so I plead ignorant for any years before that!    :usd:   However. thanks for the explanation - it makes sense!

JAK
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: albglass on September 29, 2011, 03:25:43 PM
Oh, sorry you had to repeat your info.  I did a search on Royal Brierley and your explanation didn't turn up on the search.  Sometimes it is hard to get the right search term to bring up relevant information.  Thanks for taking the time to repeat it---It is well worth repeating! 
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: Bernard C on September 29, 2011, 06:42:46 PM
Cathy — Agreed — tricky to find this information about unmarked glass if you didn't know what search argument to use, so apologies to you and JAK for being a little sharp!

The three I gave are the only examples I know and are all British.   Do you know of any American examples?   Does anyone know of examples elsewhere in the world?

Note that I am only considering here mainstream glassworks that usually marked their glass quite deliberately as an extra process, usually by acid-etching, sandblasting, or engraving.

Bernard C.  8)
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: chopin-liszt on September 29, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
With a lot of early Mdina it was simply a matter of whether or not somebody was available and had time to put a mark on or not - the same criteria apply to whether or not bases were finely, or more crudely finished off.
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: albglass on September 29, 2011, 09:24:49 PM
I can't think of a comparable example for American glass.  If anything, the reverse would be more likely.  For instance, Pairpoint usually did not mark their glass unless it was requested by the customer.  I can't think of any American examples where a company usually marked their glass and was requested by the distributer to leave it unmarked.  There are also instances where a request was made to mark the glass differently, such as Loetz having to mark their cameo glass with a French name for their clients in France, or Libochovice glass leaving off their name and using a registry number for the British market.  And many examples from Italy and Bohemia where a glassmarker who never marked their glass would be selling to an importer who added their mark.  This Royal Brierley vase is the first piece I've owned where it would normally be signed, but is unsigned at a dealer's request.  Learning something new every day!!
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: Bernard C on October 20, 2011, 02:23:35 PM
I can't think of a comparable example for American glass.   ...

Cathy — We've found one.   See the Repeal Glass discussed in topic Bimini style stem, any thoughts on maker? ID = Swingewood for Stevens & Williams (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,44134.0.html).

The company was Arthur S. Vernay, Inc. and Vernay & Jussel of New York, NY.   Particularly note the text:


Note that direct evidence is very rare.   You have to figure it out from circumstantial evidence.   I think this is good enough to make Vernay the first example in the USA.

Bernard C.  8)
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase? Answer = Yes
Post by: albglass on October 27, 2011, 03:16:28 AM
Great detective work, Bernard!
Title: Re: Is this an unsigned Royal Brierley vase?
Post by: Bernard C on October 27, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
...   The usual reason in respect of the main glassworks that usually marked glass was not that the piece was a second but that it was part of an order from one of the trade buyers that didn't want their glass signed, of which there were quite a large number.   Examples include John Lewis until quite recently, Liberty & Co.,  and Marks & Spencer.   ...

Cathy — Thanks for your kind words.   Note that I've changed my definition as I hadn't considered aspects such as American legislation requiring indication of the country of origin.   So I've tightened it to the more specific "trade buyers that didn't want their clients to be able to identify the manufacturer".

I hope that's an improvement in clarity.

Bernard C.  8)