Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass Paperweights => Resolved Paperweight Queries => Topic started by: Frank on November 03, 2006, 12:19:01 AM
-
Kevin,
What is the background to the increasing references to possible 1930's Salvador etc. :?:
-
Probably mostly down to me, really.
While looking for better quality Ysart canes [assumed by many folk to be Salvador's personal stock] in weights from Ysart Bros, Vasart Ltd and Strathearn weights, I began to notice some that had definitely been found in Paul's weights and some of those weights certainly apeared to be 1930s items. A "famous" example in this category is one of three versions of Butterfly cane that is seen in the "Vincent set" [formerly Salvador's stock] and is also known in early weights by Paul.
This would suggest that at least some of the "Salvador" canes [the better ones seen in Vasart etc. work] were in fact made in the 1930s. One conclusion [but not proven, of course] is that when Salvador, Vincent and Augustine formed Ysart Brothers Glass, they took with them a stock of existing canes.
If this was true, then we have to consider whether Salvador made many of those canes ... and Paul just happened to also use some. Or perhaps Paul made the canes and in 1946 Salvador just said, "I'm taking a load of those." Or were the canes a truly shared resource made by any of the family?
Whatever the scenario, I can't help thinking that Salvador made a range milleifiori weights (but nowhere near Paul's numbers) in the pre-war years.
Also, I have seen "Salvador" weights [pre-1956 by UV tests] that have been finshed very well. That is, the bases have been ground and polished with some showing a quite deep, and very tidy, concavity. Although these well-finished items may have been made post-war, they could just as easily be earlier.
So, with my customary caution, I began to say things like, "I think it's early Vasart and most likely by Salvador ... but it could be 1930s period". Of course, I could be completely wrong. It will be interesting to see if sellers (particularly on eBay) start to say "... could be 1930s ...". I have noted an incease in descriptions saying, "Ysart Brothers Paperweight", and I think that is a good thing as in the majority of those cases I think they are correct.
Hmmm ... it's still all supposition and there is still too little evidence to draw any decent conslusions from. Even UV tests do not, in my view, help to show differences in pre- and post-war weights.
Is it just my ramblings, or are there other folk who are suggesting 1930s Salvador milleifiori weights?
-
Have you had the chance to compare Catherine's Salvador pieces?
Certainly Salvador took what he could carry in terms of raw materials and as he used a lot of chipped millefiori it seems likely that it was intentional to take those. That weights were made early on at Vasart is not proven but very likely and the motivation to make them must have come from somewhere. Obviously a big puzzle.
-
I have seen a range of items shown by Catherine (daughter of Vincent) but there was nothing to assist in dating of millefiori weights. I think I mentioned before that the "Picture Frame" items by Salvador (one with a photo of him and one with his wife) had loops of colour but no millefiori.
-
Hypothetical descriptions are a lazy umbrella for having to do some research.
-
... assuming the data is available in the first place! :P
-
Don't know whether this will be of any interest but here is a picture of an Ysart Borthers paperweight which is very well made an has complex canes running round the out border. Kev has fluouresced this as C.1948
Dave
http://i12.tinypic.com/351g4no.jpg
moderator: image too large, converted to link
-
... assuming the data is available in the first place! :P
That's why it's called research. :wink:
-
... assuming the data is available in the first place! :P
That's why it's called research. :wink:
Well, if you can get Pilkingtons to open their archives I would be eternally grateful.
Good luck Jim/Ethan... this tape will self-destruct in five seconds...
-
Wrightoulook makes a good and valid point about "hypotheses vs research". And David makes an equally valid point about the lack of available data (which makes my own levels of research so frustrating at times).
But there is someting else I would add to the discussion which goes some way to explain why I began adding the "may be 1930s" caveat. Quite often, collectors, when discussing dating and attributions of their "Ysart" and "Ysart-related paperweights", have asked me a direct question about who made a given item and when. After I have replied such as, "I can't be sure, but I would guess <whatever>", the next statement is along the lines of, "but surely it's a <such and such> from the <whenever> period".
There is then a further comment or two about the fact the the item "has canes that are surely matched to this, that and the other "known" example, and and anyway, one or other books show one just like it, with a clearly stated date period."
So, I usually then respond with a few points about how current cane research has shown that earlier assumptions (sometimes with a decade or more of acceptance as "fact") can no longer be taken as being true. And then I try to expand the awareness and assist the research by trying to get more people involved in looking out for fresh examples which can add to the data. As part of this, I include the context of my thoughts that new evidence is showing a possibility of earlier dates than had previoulsy be considered - or, indeed, that could confirm earlier assumptions (verbal and in print) that have suggested, but certainly not proven, the earlier date as a candidate.
So, ok, my thoughts on the specific subject of 1930s Salvador Ysart paperweights are actually just a hypothesis. But should I keep it all to myself until proven beyond doubt (which may actually never be possible) or is it reasonable to get others involved in the thinking and looking?
The fact that some folk may start taking my caveats as being a "Kev truth" is regrettable and perhaps even inevitable. But is there ever a "safe" way to go about this sort of thing?
-
Agreeing with you all the way. Vagueness is sometimes necessary to promote research or discussion, and with these hypothesis and assumptions answers are sometimes found. If not, then at least it offers stimulation.
I think the mega-thread on Chance glass was a typical example. No-one had a clue where we were to begin with, but gradually a picture emerged and we've now reached a stage where virtually every pattern and shape is now safely identified. Even so there are a few anomolies that I still can't let go of but hope to have cleared by the time it's published. We'll see.
So in answer to your semi-rhetorical questions: it is still worth raising ideas and suggestions in the hope that they will eventually provide the truth.
-
Perhaps then Kev you should go for a chance style thread... identifying the ysarts.
We certainly have sufficient serious Ysart/Scottish weight collectors to bring in the data. It would be interesting to see if it works too.
-
Perhaps post it on the main glass forum. At least this way it will get full exposure, despite the fact the subject matter is 'weight-related.