Topic: Burmese? ewer with enamel and gilt decoration — Id & date please

[krsilber]

(I wrote this before reading Ken's post)

Mike, you don't sound preachy, you sound condescending.

Who suggested making up information?  I certainly didn't, nor would I!  Your comments don't "answer a bunch of my questions," they aren't even pertinent to the points I raise.

I only asked one question, so I will address your response about uranium glass.  Uranium is just one component of color, and uranium glass can come in a multitude of colors, so using "uranium glass" as a stand-in for "vaseline glass," which does describe a color, doesn't work.  Companies used a variety of names to describe their colors that mean something besides (or in addition to) the actual color:  Alexandrite, Canary, Moongleam, Dawn, etc.  Does using those terms sound inane and uneducated?

[krsilber]

... The Vaseline crowd seems determined that only those colors that are yellow/green should be considered because they are so infactuated with the reaction when in fact colors such as Cambridge's Willow Blue which also had Uranium Oxide in the formula glows almost as brightly as their defined yellow/green colors.  My point exactly!  "Uranium" doesn't describe a color, "vaseline" does.  Here is what you will not find...you will not find many (if any) members of numerous National US glass manufacturer collector groups (insert names here) refer to any of their manufacturers colors as vaseline, therefore it is inaccurate to use vaseline as a primary descriptive noun regarding US glass manufactured during the Depression or Elegant periods.  By this reasoning we shouldn't refer to any color any other way than how the manufacturer that made it did.

I'm no collector of vaseline glass, I couldn't care less what people call it.  But I think the reasoning behind rejecting its use is faulty.

My opinion only of course although it is I do believe shared by more than a few. Ken

 

Regarding Mike's Burmese vase:  not cased.  It was blown in a diamond optic mold, struck, and blown into the final mold.  The rim was struck and folded over, creating a crisp edge.

[Frank]

So who did initiate the term Vaseline in its present usage? In the 80's (dealing days) I came across it used to describe opal glass and deep blue bottles used to contain Vaseline. It was never a very meaningful name for me and it was not my area. I always remember being confused by it - only since GMB days have I seen discussion to define it more narrowly.

Give me an S&W Intagliod Caraffe any day  Using original makers terms and spellings adds to the complexity but it has its limitations. Generic terms are inevitably going to remain a part of glass collecting and from time to time they will change. But within dedicated groups of glassies - Frogs, Carnival etcetera, change will be resisted.

Assumptions about US/UK variations can also be taken apart, for example, Jugs vs. Pitchers are assumed to be such a variation but both terms were used within both markets by manufacturers in both countries.

[butchiedog]

Kristi,

preachy, condescending, patronizing, snobby, lordly...  it's all semantics and I agree with you, which is why I mentioned that it may sound preachy. Of course it couldn't be that I'm just not good at expressing myself in a hearts, flowers, (((hugs)))  and smiley face way. Naw!!! I absolutely have to be only that which is interpreted by someone else.  I am well use to that happening and it's okay with me who isn't out to conquer the world and is not running for any office.

Anyway;  I did the best I could to answer your questions and maybe I misunderstood you or maybe you really don't want an answer, but just want to argue instead. If there is something you really don't understand, if I missed the point you were attempting to make or just have another question then you could simply ask me about it.

"Who suggested making up information?  I certainly didn't"

Who suggested you were making up information?  I certainly didn't. I was talking to you about collecting in general and I stated that in my last post, so you can ignore it and take it personally if you like, bit it's you who added that extra baggage.

"Companies used a variety of names to describe their colors that mean something besides (or in addition to) the actual color:  Alexandrite, Canary, Moongleam, Dawn, etc.  Does using those terms sound inane and uneducated?"

I totally agree with that statement. My point was that the maker's did not add the word Glass to the color names and that's because the color was not the type of glass it was, it was only the color of the glass. and the fancy names were for nothing more than marketing purposes.

If you do not care to do any more than you are doing then don't do it. Like I also stated in my last post;  I am not evangelizing anything, I am simply and openly stating my own thoughts and feelings is all, so any more made of it belongs solely to the individual making more of it than what it is.

Well;  I don't want to waste any more space here or more of anyone's time, so I'm moving on to try and learn more and or try to help anyone else who wants to do the same.

--- Mike

[Ohio]

Kristi we will just have to agree to disagree. " My point exactly!  "Uranium" doesn't describe a color, "vaseline" does." The reason the term Vaseline was invented/coined in the first place was because Uranium/salts/oxides, etc. were most predominately used in glass formulas that produced the yellowish or yellowish green coloration & it isn't the color of the glass that infatuates people, its the "glow" when its introducted to an outside light source. Uranium Oxides were used in a variety of colors although admittedly later in terms of production eras, blues, greens (without a hint of yellow), etc. therefore the term is vaseline is restrictive when used to describe glass that reacts when its Uranium content is exposed to the outside light source, it ignores the fact that the basic chemical structure that is used in the batch produces the "glow". To ignore & totally disregard this fact & base it solely on the end color of the glass produced is rather pointless not to mention inaccurate. I would suggest  the term Uranium reactive glass is more appropriate. To embrace the term vaseline to describe a simple chemical reaction & limit it to only glass of a certain specific color is simply not scientifically valid.

[butchiedog]

Oooops!  I had some unfinished business here, so one more post.

Bernard C,

I'm sorry I seem to have inadvertently derailed this discussion and should have started my own thread. 

From what you have described I suggest you look into Webb or Stevens & Williams. I don't mean that as a positive ID, just that those are the names I most frequently see that kind of glass, with the description you shared attributed to. Wish I had better to share with you, especially after unintentionally, but still carelessly hijacking your thread, I apologize for that. --- Mike

[Ohio]

Yes I too must apologize Bernard. Kristi & I have a habit of continued ongoing discussions & in responding I sometimes forget that the original post gets trampled upon. Nasty American habit so curtail my posting to your original thread.   Ken

[Bernard C]

Mike & Ken — Grateful thanks, but no need to apologise for the way this topic went off the subject of my ewer, which was down to me as much as to any of the individual contributors.   Despite having used this message board and its predecessors for more years than most, I find that I am still unable to predict when a side issue will return to topic and when it will swamp the whole thread.

Anyway, I think we've swamped this one, good and proper, in relation to my ewer.   I was already planning Part II, later today, as the light here is too good for photography to miss at present.   I will start it with acknowledgements, a resumé, and a plea to stay on topic!

Bernard C.  

[krsilber]

Boy, that's pretty bad when you have to start a new thread because it gets so derailed by other topics!  I've been derailing a lot of threads lately, it seems, or at least participating in it.  My bad!  I'm on a semantics/terminology kick, and there are so many opportunities to go astray!  Add to that my history of debating with Mike and Ken, and I'm hopeless.  Sorry, Bernard!

So who did initiate the term Vaseline in its present usage? In the 80's (dealing days) I came across it used to describe opal glass and deep blue bottles used to contain Vaseline. It was never a very meaningful name for me and it was not my area. I always remember being confused by it - only since GMB days have I seen discussion to define it more narrowly.

Wow, I actually found a credible reference for an early date of the term!  I'm astonished.  A quote from this site: http://www.go-star.com/antiquing/vaseline_glass.htm
"There was also a new petroleum ointment on the market during this time period called vaseline, and the formula for the jelly at that time was the same color as this soda-lime formula of yellow glass, so coincidentally, people started calling the yellow glass vaseline glass. The oldest reference I have found in print is from N. Hudson Moore's book, Old Glass: European and American (c. 1924). On page 349, she writes, 'All the pieces shown in figure 207 are in this royal purple and canary yellow, which, by the way, no real collector would ever call vaseline, a dealer's term.' "

Those sellers again, always screwing things up, eh, Mike?


Give me an S&W Intagliod Caraffe any day  ...and I'll show you a company capitalizing on the popularity of the term "intaglio"!  More marketing maneuvers.  Using original makers terms and spellings adds to the complexity but it has its limitations. Generic terms are inevitably going to remain a part of glass collecting and from time to time they will change. But within dedicated groups of glassies - Frogs, Carnival etcetera, change will be resisted.

Assumptions about US/UK variations can also be taken apart, for example, Jugs vs. Pitchers are assumed to be such a variation but both terms were used within both markets by manufacturers in both countries.  Is there a difference in meaning, or are they synonymous?

Kristi we will just have to agree to disagree. " My point exactly!  "Uranium" doesn't describe a color, "vaseline" does." The reason the term Vaseline was invented/coined in the first place was because Uranium/salts/oxides, etc. were most predominately used in glass formulas that produced the yellowish or yellowish green coloration & it isn't the color of the glass that infatuates people, its the "glow" when its introducted to an outside light source.  "Vaseline" was presumably coined because the color looked like Vaseline, which to my knowledge never glowed.  The fact that the glass glows is a separate issue.    Uranium Oxides were used in a variety of colors although admittedly later in terms of production eras, blues, greens (without a hint of yellow), etc.  Uranium was used in yellow and green glass beginning in 1830  therefore the term is vaseline is restrictive when used to describe glass that reacts when its Uranium content is exposed to the outside light source, it ignores the fact that the basic chemical structure that is used in the batch produces the "glow". To ignore & totally disregard this fact & base it solely on the end color of the glass produced is rather pointless not to mention inaccurate.  This is no more pointless or inaccurate than calling purple glass "amethyst" rather than "manganese." I would suggest  the term Uranium reactive glass is more appropriate. To embrace the term vaseline to describe a simple chemical reaction & limit it to only glass of a certain specific color is simply not scientifically valid.

Who suggests "vaseline" describes a chemical reaction?  That's what I don't understand - why you insist that the term has to have something to do with the chemistry of the glass, rather than simply with its qualities, one of which is that it glows in UV light.  Few other color names have anything to do with their chemistry.  Do you have the same objection to Alexandrite, one quality of which is that it changes colors under different lights (at least Heisey's and Moser's did; I don't know about Webb's)?

Uranium must impart qualities to glass beyond the fact that it glows under a black light, or it wouldn't have been used so successfully for so long before the advent of UV bulbs.  Much uranium glass I've seen is a beautiful, rich color.  Is it so hard to imagine that people like yellow uranium glass for reasons other than the fact that it glows?  Besides, the fact that it does glow I find pretty cool, but then I like seeing my colorless manganese glass under UV light, too. (Mike - it's ridiculous to suggest I like glowing glass because it's a fad; there are those of us who take an intellectual interest in the chemistry of glass.  Not that you care, but I find your generalizations offensive.)

Anyway, enough of this!

[Lustrousstone]

Uranium must impart qualities to glass beyond the fact that it glows under a black light, or it wouldn't have been used so successfully for so long before the advent of UV bulbs.  Much uranium glass I've seen is a beautiful, rich color.

Actually unless your uranium glass is a rich glowing canary it can often be hard to tell why such an expensive ingredient was used. I have hundreds of pieces that aren't canary, some of them have a luminescence if the light is right or a yellow cast to the green, others are just plain green (as an example Hazel Atlas Royal Lace), or in two cases grey (both milk glass). Many of my bits weren't expensive when new (for example, some of the table ware and the dressing table sets) and they certainly wouldn't have been seen to their full glory in the poor lighting conditions in early 20th century working to middle class homes. So I don't really understand the point of using it in many cases, and that's what fascinates me - the diversity of the type and quality of things it was used in and the fact that you can't tell until you get your UV light out.