Topic: date request please for 'Webb' beak vase.

[Paul S.]

Other than knowing that Holmegaard produced this style of vase in the very early '50's, my knowledge of 'beaker' pieces is zero.   Who made this one - and that it was between 1950 and 1966 - is very obvious because of the back stamp.    So my question is simply can anyone be a little more specific as to what date range did Webbs produce these vases.     Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the Webb's book that was mentioned the other day - 'Art, Feat and Mystery' - I think it is called, although these things may well not be included anyway.  Height is something very close to 320mm.    The final picture was what I thought was a quite good Monday morning.  

[nigel benson]

Hi Paul,

I don't think you'll find it in that book (I can't remember, but I don't think this range is in it) ....but it is in a handy little tome from Millers "Glass of the 50's & 60's, A Collector's Guide"  Page 18 refers to the "Flair" range by David Hammond and Stanley Eveson. It was introduced in 1962. There were a variety of different assymetric shapes, as well as versions of one or two production shapes.

Nigel

Also in Hajdamach, page 302 - "Flair Collection", introduced in January 1962.

[Anne]

but it is in a handy little tome from Millers "Glass of the 50's & 60's, A Collector's Guide" 

Paul, I'm going to add that Nigel is far to modest to mention that he is the author of the said handy little tome, and it's well-worth having on your bookshelf if you haven't got it already.  :thup:

[Paul S.]

my thanks to both of you  -  and yes, you are too modest Nigel.......if you don't blow your own trumpet occasionally, no one else will     Sincere thanks for the help and information......in fact I don't have either book, but will now put that right.  On pay day last month I made a resolution to have a quiet month re buying books  -  so yesterday being the 1st what do I do, but succumb to the temptations of a second hand book shop...and yes, I came out a lot poorer :cry:, and they weren't even on glass!.     I really do like this beaker vase, you can just imagine the top as a Disney style of oversized beak gawping at you!    Anyway certainly a piece to be kept, and I will look out for some more.     thanks again.

[David E]

I have three of these in blue and green, two sizes (33cm and 22cm), plus a huge bowl in red*. As Nigel states, the Flair range was quite varied and also appeared to extend beyond the controlled bubble effect in the base (no, it's not featured in 'Art, Feat and Mystery'). The beaks also seem to vary in length - the small one I have is very stubby and the bubbles are confined to the base only and are not 'pulled' up the side.

*I still need an amber one to complete the set!

[Paul S.]

thanks for the interest David  -  I would imagine that like a lot of similar pieces, a group really do look so much better than odd ones (but I'm not going to part with my amber one - sorry )   Forgive my ignorance, but am I correct in thinking that designs such as these vases are 'swung', in order to achieve the stretched look?

[David E]

Not sure if they were swung, pulled, or a combination of both. Quite possibly they were stretched by swinging, but I would think the beaks would have to be pulled.

[Paul S.]

I notice that the 'www.glassyeye.com' site does make passing reference to the 'Flair Range'  -  but am I being a bit dim, I don't seem able to access any images, all the boxes are blank.    Have I done something wrong - I'm not very computer literate

[David E]

I've made changes to that page, but it still isn't showing the top two images properly. However, there is no Flair image because I haven't found the time to take the photo and upload it. Sadly, I haven't that much time to keep on top of this site, but it only appears to affect those two images. Very odd.

[nigel benson]

Hi,

Thank you, Anne and Paul - but don't forget there are one or two typos and at least two glaring mistakes (eg. Knobberly!!! and Pukeberg??? solifleur, etc..... ).

Strictly speaking, I think the use of 'beaker' should be changed to beak, otherwise it implies tumbler, or bucket form, rather than a pulled-out (beak) rim  :thup:

Nigel