Topic: Pretty Pink Studio art glass Bowl. Any ideas?

[Andy]

Just arrived in the post, bought on ebay, from Scottish seller, it appealed to me,
definitely a studio piece, hoped i may find a hidden signature, no luck though  
it reminded me of a Siddy Langley piece i bought for a present about 10 years ago.
8 inches across, 3 inches tall, footed base, and a polished pontil mark.
Only cost me a fiver, so im happy
Andy

[Frank]

Interesting in that it is colours used on Monart, so possibly Kugler colours and pre-1939, in which case not a studio piece. However, I doubt it is Monart as it looks mould blown, at least that foot - can you confirm that. The closest Monart shape is XA but that should be an applied foot.

How about WMF as a candidate?

I will be adding better images of XA to Scotland's Glass catalogue soon, I have been preparing images over the past few weeks, in the meantime just the one here http://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Page02.htm

[Andy]

Thanks Frank,
It does look similar to shape XA (just spent 20mins looking at your great piccies!)
I will try to describe how i think its put together.
I think its hand blown, not mould, its not completely round at the top, theres lots of
striations(is that right?) rings in the glass, also bubbles and some ash particles,
looking side on , the base appears clear,(about 1cm deep, so maybe applied although
cannot see or feel join) and the pontil is polished about 2 1/4" wide, almost the whole of the base.

Im hoping you may be leaning towards Monart :huh: :huh:
That would be nice, its certainly well made
Look forward to your opinion with anticipation
Cheers Andy

[Frank]

The stripes are gotten by dipping the marvered parison into a dip mould, looks a bit like an internal cog wheel, this splits the colours into stripes. Count the stripes, it is an indicator as different dip moulds had different number of teeth.

Even Monart would be ground and polished with a transparent piece.

After the dip mould the parison would be shaped and twisted to slope the stripes. It could be blown into a shape mould first too.

The foot is shaped as there is no way to include the stripes in it - or is that an optical illusion?

The foot is a continental style and the style of decorating all suggest continental to me. From France to Bohemia, with sidetrips  but if it is a shape found in WMF, no idea, you can at least eliminate it by searching for WMF Ikora

Why did you think it was a modern studio piece, such a broadly polished base would be very untypical... needs a big wheel.

[aa]

Good technical description Frank. A number of studio artists were doing stuff like this in the eighties and nineties. This looks like Kugler Zartrosa.

[Andy]

Thanks Frank and Adam,
theres 18 stripes on the bowl, pattern doesnt go into foot.
Ive had a good look at some WMF Ikora, similar, but they look a bit thicker, and have stronger
patterns.
I havent handled much Monart, im sure if you held this , you could tell immediately!
It struck me it was a studio piece just by the feel and some of the little imperfections,
a couple of large bubbles at the top in one part, see photo. I hadnt thought about the polished base!
Remember , i just know a little of everything and a lot about nothing

Do you think there is a poss of it being Monart??
Cheers
Andy

[Frank]

Can you do a profile shot of the base avoiding refraction of the stripes please.

18 stripes is not Monart (99% certain) see http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,10140.0.html

It has strong similarities to Monart and a coincidental similarity to shape XA but I really doubt if it is. There is one aspect of it that does not look right for Monart. My leaning is factory glass but studio is not impossible.

Imperfections are of course a Monart feature too! Despite it being an expensive glass in its day, finishing standards under Salvador were low. Post-War Paul Ysart work was a much higher standard of finish.

[Andy]

Hi ,
heres a couple of photos, i think came out quite well.
Frank, thanks for your help and interest in this one

Regards Andy

[Frank]

Hmm, foot does look applied but not made by any of the Ysart's in my view.

Needs to be handled to completely eliminate Monart, but I think it is eliminated. If you can get to see Nigel Benson, he should be able to give a good opinion.

Whatever, it is an excellent and gorgeous piece of glass.

I would be interested in Adam A's view of that foot being mould-blown or applied?

[aa]

Applied.