Topic: Whitefriars? tumbler vase

[Bernard C]

Click on image for picture gallery.

This is a golden amber bubbly tumbler vase, height 6" 15cm, weight 8oz 234g, a milled applied footring, and two discordant central bands of four raspberry prunts.   The glass glows a bright orangey red under my UV tester lamp.   You can see where the applied footring starts and finishes at the top of my photograph of the base.

While it looks very Whitefriars, I can't find it in Jackson, Evans, or on the websites.   Also the bubbles are quite different to the controlled bubbles found in, for example, the Daimler and the Dunhill Prong Ash Trays, and the pieces shown in Jackson p.132 Plate 136.   They are much smaller, more stretched, more variable in size, more numerous, and more random.

Enlightenment sought please, particularly manufacturer / designer and dates.   A pattern name or number would be a nice bonus.

Thanks for your time,

Bernard C. 

[Pinkspoons]

The milling on the rigaree band looks quite different to the other Whitefriars pieces I've seen / own.

[Bernard C]

Nic — I know what you mean.   I've had WF rigaree applied footrings before, and they look like miniature railway tracks.

And I've found it in Jackson.   Fig.125, Woodchester vases, bottom left, except it's not quite right.   I'm rapidly getting that feeling that I've been taken to the proverbial cleaners, if you see what I mean.  :spls:

I wonder if anyone is collecting WF fakes, along the same lines as Elsecar (the most interesting and alarming display in their bottle museum). 

Still, I am not writing it off yet.   More opinions, please.

Bernard C.  :angel:

[vidrioguapo]

The one in Jackson does not seem the same as yours.  Try Pattern 1289 in the 1931 catalogue.  It is MORE  similar, but doesn't seem to have the bubbles and it is shorter than yours.

http://www.whitefriars.com/catalogues/contents.php?pageNum_catalogue=1&totalRows_catalogue=128&id=1566

Emmi

[nigel benson]

Hello,

C'mon guys, neither reference is correct. Shape is different in both cases; there is only one row of prunts on pat no 1289; whilst there are two rows in Jackson, they are bounded by trailing; the milling is incorrect for W/F's. IMHO, there are too many inconsistancies.

Personally I'd be looking elsewhere.

Nigel

[johnphilip]

Hi Bernard it doesnt look like milling or rigoree  ,more like small polished circle and isnt it a cracked of flat top ? may not even be British . Nice for flowers . :sleep:

[Bernard C]

The one in Jackson does not seem the same as yours.  Try Pattern 1289 in the 1931 catalogue.  It is MORE similar, but doesn't seem to have the bubbles and it is shorter than yours.   ...

Emmi — Thanks for taking this topic seriously.   I agree that it's not 1289, but there is a slim chance that it could be Woodchester #11, if, for example, that particular illustration was drawn from a written description rather than an actual example — say along the lines of "tumbler vase with protruding foot and two horizontal bands of four raspberry prunts arranged at 45° to each other."   That would also explain the bands being drawn on the illustration.   The coarse milling on the foot could be Whitefriars being true to the fragments found at Woodchester.   Does anyone have the Woodchester archaelogical report?   

The one aspect of this that I feel is decisive is the strange reaction to my UV testing lamp, not a reaction I would have expected from an English between the wars golden amber like that used by Webb or Stuart, but I can't recall ever testing a known Whitefriars example.   Informed comment sought please.

Nigel — Thank you for reiterating the obvious.   If you take the trouble to read my previous reply, you will see that I am working from a position of having acquired an unwelcome example of modern deceptive repro, produced with fraudulent intent, and that I am checking it out properly with the faint hope that I am wrong.   You may be surprised to know that, if justified, I am perfectly capable of both publicising this to warn collectors of and dealers in Whitefriars glass, and of ensuring that the vase ends up in the appropriate place.

Bernard C. 

[Patrick]

  example of modern deceptive repro, produced with fraudulent intent

Bernard C. 

Hi Bernard,

If they were made for that reason then they have got it so wrong.
As John Hobbs states the rim looks cracked off and either hand finished or fire polished.
I think it is some glass company trying to make an attractive vase for whoever may like it.
Where did it turn up

Hope that helps a bit.

Regards, Patrick.

[nigel benson]

Bernard,

Thank for your illuminating reply.

I have been reading your posts on this as they were written. If you were thinking that the vase was fraudulent then why is this the first time that you've actually put your concerns clearly in writing? Until that post your hints and thoughts were fully toward W/F's (Powell).

Both you and Emmi were discussing two totally wrong attributions alluding toward Powell, with great seriousness. Why? The way the discussion reads it looks more as though you are thinking along the lines of Powell. You are far too experienced to be to be associating something through similarity alone.

Other readers may well be reading this thread thinking that the vase you have is most probably Powell because you are spending your time discussing their work since it holds the only references that you can find that vaguely fit the bill. This could easily give rise to confusion.

So, yes, I stated the bl**ding obvious, because of the way the discussion was going.

I should spread your net wider........................
 
Nigel

[vidrioguapo]

I did NOT attribute Bernard's vase to being Pat. 1289 in th 1931 catalgoue, just drew Bernard's attention to a SIMILAR looking vase for comparison purposes.  Emmi