Topic: Walsh-Walsh? Iridescent mould/hand blown ; ID = Walsh Walsh, mother of pearl

[mrvaselineglass]

Bernard
there is absolutely no substitute for handling glass in person, as the eyes have much more clarity than any photographic process.  thank you very much for sharing your observations.  As I said in my posting, I meant no disrespect, I was just opening up discussion.  It is good to know that the mother-of-pearl matched.  I am actually glad the Horse Chestnut pattern is Walsh Walsh instead of Richardson (or Webb).  They get too much credit for glass that isn't there product anyway!  LOL

I have several pieces of Walsh Walsh (4 with twisty stems) and several pieces of Opaline Brocade by JWW, but the one piece of Horse Chestnut I had (with the mother-of-pearl finish), I sold about a year ago.  I guess I need to work on replacing it, now that I know who made it.

Mr. Vaseline Glass

[Baked_Beans]

Really pleased this debate has uncovered a mistake in a publication ...hope it will help others as well as myself , Cheers All  , Mike. :chky:

[Bernard C]

...   this debate has uncovered a mistake in a publication   ...

Mike — No, not at all.   Manley did not make a mistake, as any other authority was likely to have come to the same conclusion at the time.   Indeed Manley is remarkably free of errors, as are all books on British glass published over the last 25 years.   The book with probably the longest errata list is Benson & Hayhurst, published 2003, and the reason was simply that Nigel and Jeanette were groundbreaking, covering important British cut glass from the 1930s onwards, deliberately not discussing aspects already well covered like Clyne Farquharson and Keith Murray, so there was no-one with any experience to proof read Nigel's text.   Despite this immense difficulty the errata list is far shorter than you might reasonably expect.

Every reference book you read is out of date.   They're out of date from the day they go to the printer.   The onus is upon you, the reader, to appreciate that fact, and to keep it in mind, always.   You should be constantly revising your library by adding in pencilled marginal notes as and when new research and other information affects the content.  So, anyone reading this who is lucky enough to own a copy of Manley should be pencilling into the margin near that illustration a note along the lines of "March 2010 — Now attributed to Walsh mother of pearl, see GMB topic .....".

Keith — Photographs forthcoming.

Dave — Thanks for your posts.   You probably made me make a much better case than had you not posted.

Bernard C.  

[Baked_Beans]

Hi Bernard,
Thanks for highlighting my comment. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments . I am just very pleased the matter of attributing the pattern has been solved, thanks to your research and insight, and that a missleading entry has been highlighted.
 I would have thought though, that given the large archive of pattern information available at Dennis Hall (for Richardson & Webb) ,that a published photo of a piece would have been backed up with a design/pattern number from the maker. I understand also that ,given publishers deadlines and other restraints, perhaps not all entries in a publication can be researched as thoroughly as would be hoped by authors putting together a new volume.
It's been a real eyeopener for me ! Cheers, Mike.

[Lustrousstone]

Cyril's book was publshed nearly 30 years ago and his glass was collected even further back. You have to remember how access to information has changed during that time. His book is worth having just to dribble on.

[Bernard C]

The studio or art glass piece I mentioned is discussed here.   Illustration:

Click to enlarge.   Click here for gallery with more images.

Bernard C. 

[Bernard C]

Oops, here's the topic link:

Walsh studio/art trumpet vase — real copper aventurine?

Bernard C.