Topic: Real Imperial Glass Phoenix or copy?

[Doris104]

I didn't know about the reissue dates, thanks.  I thought about contacting Imperial Glass, but it seems like I never get responses from other sites that I try to get info from.  Maybe they will be different.

Thanks for all the help.
Doris

[krsilber]

It seems likely that the curve in the neck was created after the item was removed from the mould  Why?  If they were able to mold it in it's final form, I don't see why they wouldn't be identical., in which case the angle of the neck would vary.

The other question is why would it be a copy, it was obviously produced over at least two periods, so there are bound to be small differences.  If they were made with the same mold, which seems likely, why would there be small differences in shape?  And apparently it was copied by Fostoria.  Lots of American Elegant/Depression glass originally made by one company was reissued by another.  It was common for one company to buy the molds of another as it went belly-up, and to reuse them.

I don't know much about Imperial, but I thought their Verde Green was more olive-colored, like [LINK REMOVED] this.  I used to have a Heisey by Imperial Provincial candy jar, and that Verde was even more olive.  Did it change that much over the years, or is the satin version a different color?

Mod: Links to clicksnipwow removed as site is no longer connected to glass. Please visit http://chataboutdg.com/forums/ and use the search function instead

[Sklounion]

I note that Deco Queen did not say that the original item under discussion was verde green, merely that satinised verde green versions were re-issued. As to the neck, taking such a piece from the mould may result in irregular necks, from slumping.

If they were made with the same mold, which seems likely, why would there be small differences in shape?

Deterioration of the mould in storage, wear, damage to, and repair of, mould, post-moulding work.....even a replacement mould, as until recently it was not possible to EXACTLY copy a mould, even for the same product.

Regards,

Marcus

[Lustrousstone]

I can understand why moulds would be reused elsewhere but why would something like this be copied, which is not the same thing. I also understand there is a subtle difference between reissue (issue again, which you can't do unless you've already issued it) and reproduce (copy). A reuse of a mould that has been sold on is surely a new issue by a different company. Moulds wear out, the new one might not be quite identical to the last one. Look at the Cambridge swans, they can be dated roughly by their differences I believe.

Perhaps they couldn't mould the neck in its final form and it did need tweaking - we don't know. Pressed glass pieces are not always quite identical - I bought a pair of candlesticks this weekend and the candle holder on one has a small sideways list, and it's a very simple shape.

In fact the two shown here are subtly different in neck and crest [LINK REMOVED]

Mod: Links to clicksnipwow removed as site is no longer connected to glass. Please visit http://chataboutdg.com/forums/ and use the search function instead

[krsilber]

Yes, it's possible the angle of the neck may vary due to slumping or repositioning; I thought of that, too.  But normally there was a lot of attention paid to making these things as identical as possible, and as long as it was possible to mold the head and neck in final position, that's how they would do it.  Hard to tell whether that was the case here or not, though.  (The Cambridge swan mold positioned the head in its final spot, but that's not relevant, just an aside.)

I used the term "reissue" wrong, thanks for pointing that out, Christine.  Molds were reused by "secondary" companies, though - reproductions were made.  It's a big problem among collectors of the patterns that were reproduced.  Imperial reproduced many Heisey patterns, for example, often in their own colors, but sometimes in "crystal," too.  Some even still have the Heisey Diamond H on them.  It can be very difficult to tell them apart.

Molds were retooled, but that wouldn't account for a change like the position of the head.  It could account for other, more detailed differences by which items might be dated, though.  Why couldn't some molds be copied as long as they didn't require cutting or etching to complete?

The green one Christine posted a link to is Imperial's Verde.  It's hard to tell the differences between that and the opaque blue one when the photos are taken at different angles.

I'm not saying either way whether the light green one is a reproduction.  I have no idea.

[Doris104]

I did send an email off to Imperial Glass to see if they would help me.  I will post as soon, or if, I get a response from them.  I hope they follow through with a response.  With all the information that you were talking about, now I really need to know.  That is a totally different green than mine.

[Sklounion]

Molds were retooled, but that wouldn't account for a change like the position of the head.

May I ask why not?
Regards,
Marcus

[Cathy B]

Yes, it's possible the angle of the neck may vary due to slumping or repositioning; I thought of that, too.  But normally there was a lot of attention paid to making these things as identical as possible, and as long as it was possible to mold the head and neck in final position, that's how they would do it.

Just as a general rule, the more complex the moulded pattern, the more likely it is to need post-mould tooling.

[Frank]

It is not wise to assume that a single mould was used, as popular lines might require multiple moulds to be used concurrently and each mould would have differences and some of these could be significant. Retooling a worn mould is unlikely to change the overall geometry but it is feasible to replace one or more parts of a mould completely as deemed necessary.

Comparing press images of pressed items can reveal substantial difference - to an eye used to seeing differences. This can be seen in a 1975 image of a Jurnikl figurine (Glass Figurines Pelt, 1975 page 13) reproduced in the Glass Zoo alongside an image from the same angle of an example in my collection (Even allowing for ambitious trimming of the original image. A quick glance at another half a dozen if this figurine shows that several moulds had been used. How one would date based on such differences is hard unless you have access to the original moulds and the dates of their use. On the other hand, in this case some evolution and refinement of the design could be considered - but at best it would be educated guesswork. As modern technology allows for precision reproductions to be made, would the impact be to class all that match one particular original mould to be regarded as reproductions?

[Cathy B]

 :clap: Thanks Frank