Topic: Nazeing basket?

[Frank]

How a piece's pontil is finished is irrelevant as I have often said - although useful as a pointer in identification.

My quality remark on Nazeing is due to many pieces being very sloppily made and often exhibiting the aesthetics of a blindman. At the other extreme they also produced some really beautiful pieces that are also well made and finished.

[Frank]

... and said none of the other pieces were right and gave reasons why they were not.

Some details of this could be useful as these, despite possible shortcomings, might assist in judging possible Nazeing attributes.

...  maybe my misgivings were worth a first public airing.

But without giving any of the information behind those misgivings they add no value to the debate, other than to cast a shadow over the Timberlake book.

[RAY]

here we go Frank some close ups, the pontil is a clean snap 1cm across with just very minor grinding

[Frank]

Looks like two colours are used?

Does not look very much like my Nazeing sample. Although that is also inconclusive.

[nigel benson]

Nigel wrote:

It is quite possible that there are at least 3 sources for the various pieces that have similar stylistic features to Nazeing. Until that is sorted out to at least a basic level I feel that the least said the better.

Frank replied:

Some details of this could be useful as these, despite possible shortcomings, might assist in judging possible Nazeing attributes.

I do not think it would do the "debate" any good at all to discuss attributes that would only allow us to conclude that there are in fact a number of types of glass that are, or are maybe not, Nazeing. This would remain just as confusing, especially since we cannot give names to any of the alternatives without making assumptions about each origin at this stage. The issue is quite complex and I don't wish to publish my findings at this point in time without far more conclusive proof.

Raising my misgivings on these posts seems reasonable and reflects ideas and thoughts given on other glass subjects on these boards.

Frank then continued:

But without giving any of the information behind those misgivings they add no value to the debate, other than to cast a shadow over the Timberlake book

.

My intention is certainly not to "cast a shadow over the Timberlake book".

I discussed the situation with Geoff at the time, whilst we were setting up the exhibition. He had already written and had had the book printed, so there was nothing that could be done at the time, nor was there enough time to research the information we had received.

I thought that I had left a reasonable enough time between the publication of the book and the first public voicing of my misgivings, however it seems I was wrong, judging by this reaction.

I was given a piece of advice by a well-published and respected author once. It ran roughly along the lines that if you are doing original research on a subject there comes a point in time that you really have to put pen to paper, construct your book and publish. There will always be another piece of information, or another piece of the jigsaw coming in, but you cannot hope to get everything into a first publication on a given subject. The book you publish will be the keystone for the subject, and may indeed become the definitive one on the subject, but it may also serve to be a kick-off point for whoever comes after.

Geoff Timberlake produced an informative book that has added incredibly to our understanding of the history of Nazeing and its forerunner, Kempton and it is the keystone, but information is coming to light that necessarily adds to that written by Geoff, although most of this information bears no relavance to this current discussion.
 
I decided that I would flag up my thoughts.

I feel that your comments (Frank) are designed to tempt me into saying more than I wish at this point in time. I understand your point and have concluded with some regret that I will endeavour to keep my thoughts to myself in future.

Bernard, thank you for your kind reaction to my initial entry.

Ray, your detail photos are interesting. They do not look like anything in my Nazeing collection (comfortably over 200 pieces), nor anything that I currently have in stock (another 20 pieces), but if you take into account the previous posts on this thread that really means nothing, since I have avoided these pieces when collecting!!

Oh, by-the-by, it is unwise to use an Elwell label as proof that a piece is Nazeing since Elwell sourced their glass from a number of makers and manufacturers, including for instance, Gray Stan.

Nigel

[Bernard C]

... cast a shadow over the Timberlake book.

This is also not the conclusion I reach.   I cannot think of any modern book on British glass that is substantially more accurate.   No book or website suffers from examination and re-examination of its content.

My copy of Timberlake already has pencilled notes in the margins.   That's what margins are for.   Against plate 47, the two-handled posy, there is a large question mark.   Alongside the cream jug in plate 33 there is "? – see Cat plate VIII (ii)" as it could be a variant.

Of course time will throw up a few errors in Geoff's book, as it has done with all books on British glass.   That fact does not make it any less valuable or praiseworthy.

I have the greatest respect and admiration for those who have invested time, effort and money in producing books on British glass.   I am constantly amazed that they are all of such high quality, accuracy and usefulness.

Bernard C.  

[roget123]

This style has been seen with an Elwell label and a side handled variant is shown in the Timberlake Nazeing book.

However, on a more careful look it does not appear to exhibit many Nazeing characteristics - other than being fairly low quality.

I ought to comment on this interesting debate.  I have a basket in my collection which is identical (apart from colour) to this one and I have always been happy with a Nazeing attribution -depsite Nigel's misgivings.

In my book the version with two 'D' side handles however does cause me doubts, It is really very poor quality, even for Nazeing on a bad day.  :roll:  I included it in the book to see what discussion it might provoke. If anyone proves it was made elsewhere I shall be the first to cheer!!!

A few years ago in Grays Antique Centre I found a Dealer with two or three baskets that on initial glance appeared to be Nazeing. However on a closer look they were simply too terrible -even worse than the two handle item - that I decided that were made by another source. The Dealer thought they were foreign and he may have been right. I left them on his shelf.

Nigel is correct when he reminded us that an Elwell label is NOT an  automatic identification of a Nazeing piece.  See Plate 49 of my book, which shows a bowl definately not made by Nazeing, but possibly by Haden Mullet Haden during the 1920-30 period. 

Thanks to Nigel and Bernard for their kind comments about my book, if any other surfer of this message does not have a copy then I am certain that either Nigel or Bernard would be happy to accept your money in exchange for a copy.

Geoff

[Anne]

Ray, I think I know what you'll say, but I'm going to ask anyway! Do you still have pics of the basket please?