Topic: Odd looking vase with Rd No 543290 - ID = Whitefriars 916

[Tigerchips]

Maybe they didn't polish the pontils on some of the older pieces.

[Frank]

Or it was a second, before reaching finishing. You said earlier it was folded over after cutting polishing... not possible. So it was mould blown for the ribs and folded hot.

[Cathy B]

Brilliant work TC, and isn't that extraordinary that reference books would ignore WF registration numbers!

[Anne]

Perhaps that's something that needs to be added to one of the Whitefriars sites if they aren't there already.

[Tigerchips]

Or it was a second, before reaching finishing. You said earlier it was folded over after cutting polishing... not possible. So it was mould blown for the ribs and folded hot.

My lack of understanding of glass making presumedly. Are you saying the oval bits are moulded?  I also thought they might be trapped air bubbles but how would they trap them like that, they are flat.

I was not aware that Whitefriars sold seconds.

[agincourt17]

Photos of a nice green example. RD number seems to be engraved rather than acid etched.

(Permission for the re-use of these images on GMB granted by Margaret Maxwell).

[Lustrousstone]

I have one of these, yet to be photographed, in jade uranium glass with the rd no, but without the ribbing and taller... Skelcher postulates that mine is Stevens and Williams

[nigel benson]

Just dropped in after a long gap !!

These are clearely identified in the Whitefriars exhibition catalogue edited by Jackson and published by Dennis page 126, plate 117, item iv.

It is also in the Museum of London book in the reproducton of the cataogue pages.

Just to be my normal contentious self, I have always known this vase as ID'd through its registration number.........by, and through, other Whitefriars collectors and dealers many years ago - before all the books noted above 

It has been discussed online before, not sure if on these boards, or on W/F's dot com. I remember commenting on the thread and saying that it was designed by a gentlemen from Hammersmith. Therefore, since he designed it (probably), and certainly owned the registration, he was able to sell to a number of companies - Powell and S&W being two of the known ones.

Sorry, the name has long since escaped my little grey cells   However, it was Miles Hoole who did the work in the Kew Archives 

Nigel

[Lustrousstone]

Here is the Stevens and Williams version, sans ribbing, plus 2 in. It is in the 1923 catalogue as 53254 and called a Jacobean vase. The design (presumably just the shape and the folded rims) was by Thomas Carnie West and registered on 5 June 1909.

[Anne]

And a clear version in the database too:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-17954
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-17953

Christine, I'm confused. Your S&W has the same RD no as those said to be Whitefriars... how can this be? Was the same vase  made by both glassworks to someone else's (Thomas Carnie West?) RD? And who was Thomas Carnie West?