Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Paul S. on April 27, 2011, 08:42:11 PM

Title: W/Fs. amethyst bowl for id.
Post by: Paul S. on April 27, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
I thought this was probably pattern 8266 - it's a spiral design with diameter of about 11.75" - but now not sure as the foot is not of the 'milled' edge sort, although it does have a folded edge to the rim.   Typical quality 'ding' and large ground/polished pontil mark.     Very grateful for someone's guidance please and thanks for looking. :)
Title: Re: W/Fs. amethyst bowl for id.
Post by: johnphilip on April 28, 2011, 10:18:32 PM
Hi paul i am not sure they all had the milled edge but check the base very carefully because W/Fs got some of the designs from Eda and the Eda ones are usually signed , tiny sig Eda three letters . ps and folded rim .
Title: Re: W/Fs. amethyst bowl for id.
Post by: Paul S. on April 29, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
thanks jp - and I've now been all over this with a magnifying glass but have to say no sign of the word Eda.    However, think I'm coming to the conclusion that this bowl may well not be W/Fs. - too many small bubbles, several whitish seeds and what appears to be unmixed colour  swirls.     The grinding/removal of the pontil scar is also wrong, I think (multiple grinding facets).    Must admit to knowing absolutely nothing about Eda glass (Sweden).    Wud you commit to giving an approximate date for this piece - assuming not W/Fs?
Title: Re: W/Fs. amethyst bowl for id.
Post by: chriscooper on April 29, 2011, 04:06:45 PM
Hi Paul not one I can recall looks a little 'heavy' and the pontil mark is quite large cannot think of many W/f bowls with the folded rim apart from 9090 a Tom Hill design from 1937

http://www.whitefriars.com/catalogues/contents.php?id=10360

Also a better picture in the Jackson book page 126 plate 119 also a couple of Hogan ones with a rigaree foot worth keeping an eye out for.

Chris
Title: Re: W/Fs. amethyst bowl for id.
Post by: Paul S. on April 30, 2011, 05:48:29 PM
thanks Chris  -  I will put this to one side for the moment, in the 'wait and see' heap. ;)    I do have Jackson, but not the Museum of London book which, whenever I see a copy is usually on the wrong side of £175. :o