Topic: why 's/s' scratched on an FJT Candlestick Pls.?

[Paul S.]

Sorry to be thick, but can someone tell me the significance of the 's/s' on the underside of this FJT 62 Cleo Candlestick.    thanks for looking.
Now isn't that a nice change.....brief, succinct, to the point  -  no un-necessary rambling, deviation, tautology, repetition, endless personal comments, refusal to admit that I could be wrong, generalisations, assumptions........vague attributions and comparisons and the use of 'isms, 'ishes'........................it won't last

[Max]

Guess.... Small / Size ?    :huh:

[antiquerose123]

 :hi: Paul S.    Super close-up shots there !!!  That is really working out Great for you.  :thup: 

I am wondering (??) if instead of S/S -- Might it be 5/5 ??

The second mark looks more like a *5* to me, than a *S* - but that is just a Guess.  Might it have been a 5 piece set (which seems like a odd number for a set) but being Candles, maybe they were a 5 piece set for a Mantle or something?

....or maybe it is 5/5 -- as someone had engraved the bottom (in the past) for an Estate in regards to the Inventory??  And that there were only 5 left, and so they were marked to *know* that all 5 pieces are to be sold together....or even for an auction (??)

These are only a silly guesses..... :ooh:

[Bernard C]

Paul — An interesting mark, probably for sub-standard, as distinct from second, which would have indicated that it was faulty defective, and was (I think) indicated by a differently coloured label.

The most obvious explanation is that it wouldn't fit the box.   Another is that the colour was slightly outwith the inspector's acceptable limits for Midnight? (I'm doing this from memory — always risky!), as one of Dartington's / Wedgwood's selling points was that you could buy more at any time and rely on a reasonably good colour match.   There may be other explanations.

I think Eva Thrower and Mark Hill would be interested.

Bernard C.  

[Paul S.]

Max/Rose/Bernard -  my sincere thanks for your input.          I had originally thought that it might be implying something like 'Seconds', or as Bernard suggests 'sub-standard', but that was only a guess, not based on any real knowledge.   I bought this piece at the weekend from a charity shop, and contrary to my usual acquisitions from these places, it actually came with its original box (sorry, I should have mentioned this in my original note ).   I'm at work now, but from memory I think there might be a picture of a similar box in Mark Hill and Eve Thrower's book (bottom of a right hand page maybe - tallish, in white, with black writing/lines only).       Again, from memory, I am aware of the various coloured labels implying different qualities  -  Gold is for First and then is it either red or black for Second (?)   -   unfortunately my stick is without any label :cry:, so no help there.    But having the box, of course, rather made me think that maybe this one couldn't but be a First Quality  -  after all, would the factory go to all the trouble of packaging into a box for a sub-standard item.      I'm only speculating, I have no real idea.   The box (at least the one that came with my stick) is much taller that the stick, and leads me to think that there must have been a lot of tissue wrapping   - either that, or there were two in a box, but whatever, I'm now unsure of Bernard's comment 'that it wouldn't fit the box'?? - sorry to be thick Bernard.   
In fact I had also thought of contacting Eve Thrower, although she may well not have any knowledge of this anyway.   I did go to meet her about a year ago to buy a copy of the book (which she very kindly signed for me) but can't remember if I now have contact details for her.

[vidrioguapo]

Now isn't that a nice change.....brief, succinct, to the point  -  no un-necessary rambling, deviation, tautology, repetition, endless personal comments, refusal to admit that I could be wrong, generalisations, assumptions........vague attributions and comparisons and the use of 'isms, 'ishes'........................it won't last Smiley

No, it didn't last......... :24:

[Lustrousstone]

The various label colours were for Dartington Glass, not Wedgwood. Wedgwood seconds are usually unmarked. Perhaps someone was just Dremel happy.

[Bernard C]

Christine — See Thrower & Hill, bottom of p.79.

Bernard C. 

[Paul S.]

'The various label colours were for Dartington Glass, not Wedgwood'.........thanks Christine, very bad mistake on my part. -  confused my self, as of course this is an FT designated piece.     How about a 'Dremel Doodle'?

Emmi, what can I say.............'never mind the quality, feel the width'.......or in this case the length

[Max]

I think it would be a bit of odd Dremeling, wouldn't it?  I've got a postcode on one piece of glass here that someone's thoughtfully Dremelled onto a 'probably Lauscha' lion's foot...but Paul's s/s looks pretty neat and concise doesn't it?

I don't know a thing about this style of candlestick, but I suggested Small Size I did so because Wedgwood use S/S, M/S and L/S on some of their china wares currently.  Erm...was this style of candlestick available in a set of three sizes?

Alright, alright!  I expect I'm wrong, but I'm sticking to my guns in the absence of anything else concrete at the moment!    :24: