Topic: Some more Vaseline / Uranium 'triffids'

[Leni]

I bought my copy from Mervyn Gulliver himself (and he signed it!  ) at the last National Glass Fair at Gaydon.  I don't know if he is going to be at the next fair, but I hope so!    Other than that, I wouldn't know how to get hold of a copy!  But his email address is given in the book, so perhaps it might be possible to email him and order one?  If anyone is interested, I could email him and ask him if he would be happy for me to give out his email address.  (I don't see why not, since he put it in the book, but I'd like to ask, anyway.)  Or maybe he could be asked to bring copies to Gaydon for those who want one? 

I warn you though, they are expensive.  I paid £45 for the smaller book and I think the larger one was about £60    They are spiral-bound, not 'proper' books, because Gulliver was unable to get the publisher to do a revised edition and had to do them himself, and of course he hasn't the economies of scale of a large publishing house!  What a pity!     

[KevinH]

I'd like to raise a point of detail regarding the comparisons Bernard has made to the items in Gulliver's Victorian Decorative Glass, British Designs 1850-1914.

Leni's first vase shown, with the wonderful amber inner colouring, has feet with opalescent "thorns". The other vases have, as far as I can tell, smooth surfaces to the "root feet". The page 91 and 93 items that Bernard compared to are of the smooth feet variety. Even taking due account of the point about known use of colouring at Walsh, could the differences in smooth and "thorned" feet suggest another maker?

I realise that in the book and on some of Leni's items, there are some with "thorns" on the body but not on the feet, so it shows that the same maker produced both varieties. I also know that some items with seemingly smooth "root feet" do have one or two "thorns" (I have an example).

But, are "thorns" important for making comparative attributions? If not, what exactly is it about the feet on Leni's items that suggest they are the same as some Walsh items in the book?

[Bernard C]

Kevin — Thanks, an oversight, as I had meant to exclude Leni's first vase, which is quite different.

As for all the other feet, they are made in two parts, each with three or four legs, sandwiched together with an offset, so that you end up with usually six or sometimes eight legs in all.

I don't know whether this technique was Walsh, Stourbridge College, or more widely known.   What I do know is that the only fully attributable examples of these feet I have found are the two I cited in Gulliver and very similar pieces, all of which are unmistakably Walsh.   I've been looking for examples with definite attribution to other glass houses for over two years, and I have not found a single example.

I believe that the longer I keep looking unsuccessfully, the more likely that this style of foot is a Walsh exclusive.   Whether you accept this argument or not depends on your willingness to accept statistical evidence.   It has its weaknesses, but I believe that it cannot be ignored.

How much do you use statistics and probability in the analysis of canes of millefiori paperweights?

Bernard C. 

[Leni]

Good point, Kev.  I did not think Bernard meant to include the first one.  In fact, the amber one is rare in my collection for more than its colour, in that it appears to be one of the only ones I have in which the 'thorns' appear to be dots of opalescent glass applied afterwards, as opposed to the 'pull-out' thorns on most of the others! 

As well as the similarities in the feet on these 'triffids', the 'trumpet' on my two (possibly) related opal flowers would both appear to be blown into a very similar ribbed mould.  Of course I realise this doesn't mean they are necessarily from the same glasshouse, but ...   (On the other hand, so was the amber one    :huh: )

However, I talked to Mervyn Gulliver at Gaydon last year about the difficulties of identifying this sort of item, and whether it was possible to narrow down the makers from the 'Generic Stourbridge' I mentioned above    Mr Gulliver felt that even similarities like impressed prunts and rigaree could not be used to separate one maker from another, as most of the glasshouses in the area would have had the same tools for working glass - often made by the same tool-makers! 

Aaaarrrggghhh!  :hb2: 

[Bernard C]

... the first one ... is rare in my collection for more than its colour, in that it appears to be one of the only ones I have in which the 'thorns' appear to be dots of opalescent glass applied afterwards, as opposed to the 'pull-out' thorns on most of the others! ...

I disagree, Leni, I think they are pull-outs (to use your terminology) like all the others, it's just that the glass is canary opalescent rather than plain canary.

What is the amber of the flute cased in?   Clear opalescent, canary opalescent, or something else?

Bernard C. 

[Leni]

Gosh Bernard, you're right, of course!    I've looked again and the 'thorns are indeed 'pull-outs'!  :spls: It's just that they are really very long and all have gone quite 'white'. 

The amber flute is cased in a thin layer of the yellowy-green uranium glass.  It's not visible in normal light, but under UV the whole thing looks bright green - the amber doesn't show up at all!   

(BTW, Is 'Canary Opalescent' the correct term for it?  I always think of that as being an American expression - Fostoria, or Dugan rather than Stourbridge.  I tend to just say 'uranium' rather than 'vaseline' (having been told off many times by Peter      )  But I really should know the correct terms, shouldn't I?  )   

[KevinH]

Bernard, thanks for the additional info. I had not known of the two-part "sandwiching" process of making the feet. I will keep an eye out for that.

My own example that has the one or two "thorns" on otherwise smooth "roots", and which is a very bright uranium green, is made with a horizontal central length to which have been added five feet, two upright opalescent "thorned" tube flower holders and an upright "thorned" something. The central part has an added, but not too clear, prunt to cover the punty mark.

I agree with the general thoughts on statiscal evidence, but that is a subject I do not understand too well. (I have a book on statistical analysis but never got past the first few pages!).

How much do you use statistics and probability in the analysis of canes of millefiori paperweights?

What I use is more akin to "awareness of common detail across items as I have personally examined". It is one of the reasons that I always like to include words such as, "possibly, maybe, likely" in much of my comments.

[Leni]

I would love to see a picture of your example, Kevin!  Would you post a picture? 

[KevinH]

Main view
Base showing (more or less) construction of feet
The prunt (which was previously (and rightly) described by Leni in another message as "not very clear")

[Bernard C]

... Is 'Canary Opalescent' the correct term for it?  I always think of that as being an American expression - Fostoria, or Dugan rather than Stourbridge.  I tend to just say 'uranium' rather than 'vaseline' ...

Leni — "Canary" was used by Kempton in 1886 and 1887 in very successful Pottery Gazette full-page advertisements for their trumpet vases, making it clear that the term was established and in common use by the glass trade across all six continents by then.   Indeed it is the ONLY contemporary and universal term for yellow glass I have found, all the others being either glass house specific (like Sowerby's Gold) or modern collector terminology (like Uranium and Vaseline).   See Timberlake pp62–63.

... My own example that has the one or two "thorns" on otherwise smooth "roots", and which is a very bright uranium green, is made with a horizontal central length to which have been added five feet, two upright opalescent "thorned" tube flower holders and an upright "thorned" something. The central part has an added, but not too clear, prunt to cover the punty mark. ...

Kevin — Difficult to see from the photographs, but it looks like a modified six-legged sandwich foot to me.

Bernard C.