Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Unresolved Glass Queries => Topic started by: glasswizard on August 25, 2005, 09:45:50 AM

Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: glasswizard on August 25, 2005, 09:45:50 AM
I have had this vase for a very long time. At one time I suspected Richardson, but since I am not that familiar with English glass, although thanks to all of you I am learning, I thought I would post it and see what kind of response it entails It is apprx. 14 inches tall has a lot of wear to the base which also has what looks like a huge ground and polished pontil.

(http://tinypic.com/b53doo.jpg)

The gold decoration to me is rather a distraction. It is very worn in spots and around the neck missing entirely in areas. It is a translucent green and surprised me when I was playing with my blacklight.
So would it be opaline? Not sure exactly what to call it. Terry
(http://tinypic.com/b6anlu.jpg)
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: Ivo on August 26, 2005, 08:42:33 AM
It whispers "Italy, fifties" to me.... :shock:
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: glasswizard on August 27, 2005, 07:31:51 AM
After more research, it whispers many things to me now, but not Italy fifities. The bottom  is what makes me shy away from Italy.
I would expect a flat bottom if Italian. http://tinypic.com/b53yc4.jpg
Further research such as The Great glass library, category English other, items 7107 and 7120 shows  possible Richardson pieces. I now can say with confidence it is opaline glass. The French were great producers of Opaline, but the gilding on mine is applied thinly, hence the wear and IMHO without the extravagance exhibited on French examples. Terry
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: Connie on August 27, 2005, 08:52:00 AM
Terry -

I love your vase.  I always thought opaline was white or off-white.  I would describe the vase you show as jade glass (or the lack of a better term in my vocabulary.)  Where did you find a good definition for opaline and could you please share it with us?
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: David555 on August 28, 2005, 03:16:24 AM
With that black light making it glow  :?  it has a hefty dose of Uranium in it - hence the name 'Uranium Glass' - for the last 200 years manufacturers have been adding it to glass - 'it adds a quality' - but really only if you have black light which is a recent development - they all look like normal vases is normal conditions, so I have always wondered why they did this - the only company it seems to make a difference to are Webb C Burma ware - there is a daylight glow there for sure, but a lot of Uranium - any info on why for so many others is of interest to me
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: Glassyone on August 28, 2005, 03:58:54 AM
This is intrigueing! It' s lovely.
It is a good example to practice on. It looks British to me, nicely balanced with a flare up to to the rim and the curve finishing somewhere in between a British and Bohemian vase.
The foot looks blown and compressed but not quite as wide as a British example would be in comparision to the top.  
The rim is rounded which is more 'British'.
Perhaps it was a Richardson 'Bohemian type'!
Don't take me too seriously I'm a preschooler in glass!
Ruth.
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: glasswizard on August 28, 2005, 10:08:02 AM
Connie, your question about a definition of Opaline got me to pondering. Its one of those words I think now used without much thought and on my part guilty I am afraid. Ivo in his book Glass Fact File a-z gives a wonderful definition. Opaline is a type of glass, semitransparent. He also states similar to Bristol glass. There is more and I urge anyone who needs to know to get the book. Wonderful!!!!
To keep this short (too late I know) lets say Opaline is a type of glass.
On my part, I feel like striking the word Opaline from my description until I learn more. Instead let us say a 14 inch Translucent green glass vase.
Ruth I am glad you like it and if I had to use one word as a description, it would be "Stately"
David, good question but not sure there is an easy answer as to why they used uranium. And not just in old glass, I have an iittala votive candle holder in blue, brand new that glows a soft yellow under blacklight. Terry
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: Leni on August 28, 2005, 10:49:16 AM
Quote from: "glasswizard"
Ivo in his book Glass Fact File a-z gives a wonderful definition. Opaline is a type of glass, semitransparent. He also states similar to Bristol glass. There is more and I urge anyone who needs to know to get the book. Wonderful!!!!

I agree absolutely, Terry!  I just recently bought Ivo's book!  :D

As for opaline, until recently I admit I had been guilty of thinking (or rather, of not thinking very much  :roll: ) that all opaline glass was uranium or similar  :oops:  :roll:

However, I reckon my little 'headless chicken' (Sowerby 'Swan & Bullrush') vase is definitely opaline!  It glows with wonderful 'fire' in sunlight, but shows not a trace of luminescence under black light!   :shock: http://tinypic.com/b8woeb.jpg IMHO it's a perfect example to use as a definition of 'Opaline' :shock:

And I am now trying not to make ignorant assumptions in future :oops:

Leni
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: KevinH on August 30, 2005, 07:29:37 PM
Leni - I would have said your Sowerby piece was "Opalescent", not "Opaline".

As for Terry's green vase, I agree with the views that it has a general "British" / "Bohemian" look to it. And it does have features of mid to late 19th century work. But I also think the gilded decoration is (or was) rather ornate or fancy for what I have seen of British items and I would not be surprised to find out that Ivo was not so far off with the 20th century "Italian" idea.

I would have half expected that a Richardsons' vase of this type would have been marked "Richardsons Vitrified Enamel" on the base. But perhaps that was reserved only for the very best pieces?

On the question of shape, does the neck form smoothly from the shoulder of the body or is there a "ridge line"? It looks a bit "angled" to me.
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: Glen on August 30, 2005, 07:36:40 PM
I love that Sowerby item - made more charming by its little flaw  :shock:

The colour is opalescent, as Kev notes. It is sometimes also referred to as blanc de lait (though there is a debate around that).

Glen
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: paradisetrader on August 30, 2005, 08:59:45 PM
Wouldn't the pattern of wear round the neck suggest a good age ?
Or are you, Ivo and Kev, suggesting that it might be early C20 ?
Or does this kind of gold decor wear off quite easily ?
Wouldn't it have been fired on ?

I notice also that the pattern of the gilding is irregular, with gaps on the body and without any discernable symmetry. Would this be "right" for Italian ? Might not the Victorians have been as guilty of gilding the lilly as the Italians ?

Richardson certainly did opaline according to great glass. http://www.great-glass.co.uk/library/lib2ae.htm
The examples you point us to Terry are somewhat lighter ...I'm wondering if your vase is actaully lighter than it appears in your photo ? The background looks a little grey / pink ...should it be white ?

The decor on the guilded piece 7107 is very different ...er sparser and symmetrical ...so maybe Ivo is right (as usual) !!

Just some thoughts.......
Peter
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: KevinH on August 30, 2005, 10:16:26 PM
Hopefully, when I get back from Kew Gardens tomorrow (Chihuly Glass, Magnificent Plants and 31 degrees of Celcius type heat apparently :shock: ) I will post some photos of a Richardson's vase I have which is opal coloured opaline (or "vitrified") and is overall decorated in what I would call typically Victorian patterns. It might not prove anything but could be interesting to compare with Terry's example. Mine is marked "Richardson's Stourbridge" to the base, which was just one variation of their marks.

And Leni - yes, I am sure you will "get this glass business". In fact, you already have, but just in the wrong order now and then. (A bit like the joke that a famous British comedian once made with an equally famous British composer ... When the composer said the comedian was not playing the right notes for the melody, the comedian replied, "Ohhhh yes I am, they are the right notes, just in a different order"  :D ).
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: glasswizard on August 31, 2005, 09:37:24 AM
To answer a couple of questions first. KevH, I do not detect any ridge line at the shoulder, it flows smoothly.  Peter, granted 7107 is very much lighter, but 7120 I would say is the exact same color as mine. I am sure the color of my pic is off a bit, not that good at pic taking yet.
The gilding is very thin although I detect a difference even there. The rings at the top and the bottom have a matt finish while the vining leaves are a bright gold.
Having addded all that now I must just say I hope you all have a wonderful time a Kew. While ooogling and ahhhhhhing over Chihuly just think of me working  :cry: And I sure hope someone takes pics!!!!! Terry
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: Frank on August 31, 2005, 07:54:43 PM
There is no reason for fired enamels not to wear off, the firing bonds to the glass, not fuses. Obviously fired enamels are much harder wearing than cold but still subject to wearing off, particularly gold!!! Which is a fairly soft finish.

Stuart Strathearn marks were sandblasted, not etched, very lightly onto the glass base and have also been known to wear away!
Title: Richardson's Green vase = Unlikely!
Post by: KevinH on September 01, 2005, 11:50:18 PM
It took a little longer than I first said, but here's the images I promised:

Full view: http://tinypic.com/bi5tw4.jpg
This shows a somewhat different shape to Terry's vase but illustrates a gentle, smooth form of the neck out of the body, which is also seen, for example, in items 6868 and 7107 (and also 7256 & 7412) in the Great Glass site (as linked earlier by Peter). It also shows how an overall gilded decoration can still manage to be "quiet" in its presentation.

This vase is 10 inch high, 3 3/16 inch diameter at the rim, 3 5/16 inch diameter at the widest body point, 2 7/16 inch diameter at the foot and has a good thickness at 3/16 inch. It weighs in at almost 1lb 7oz (650g).

Part of Decoration: http://tinypic.com/bi5wtj.jpg
This is a part of the body decortaion and, having checked the literature, I understand this to be Rococo Revival (or was that in reference to the style and shape of the piece??), which ties in with the fashion of mid-19th century. Again, the Great Glass 6868 & 7107 vases show the similar style. Although I cannot make out the actual decorative features on Terry's vase, it does not seem to be anything like those I would expect for a Richardsons' 19th century piece. But ... I have only seen what I have seen and that is mostly what is shown in the books!

Top part: http://tinypic.com/bi5web.jpg
Underside of Foot: http://tinypic.com/bi5wn5.jpg
Both the Rim and Foot have age-rubbed gilding, which is in keeping with a 19th century item. The rubbed gilding of Terry's vase seems to me to be less severe. But the main thing I notice when studying Terry's pic in enlargement is that the gilding looks to be "burnished", which suggests a much later production.

Mark to Underside of Foot: http://tinypic.com/bi5wza.jpg
This is shown for interest. It is one of the known Richardson marks - and has a "P" code which, according to Hajdamach in "British Glass", had not been identified in terms of its meaning.

Going back to the comparison of green colours with the Great Glass 7107, I am reasonably sure that these are completely different and that it is not just an effect of the photography or computer screens etc.

So in summary, although I can see 19th century style and features in Terry's vase, on closer examination I don't think it is. It's the intensity of the green and the very full decorative elements (whatever they are in detail) that are the main points that cause me to change my mind.