Topic: CUT GLASS BOWL - CZECH?

[vidrioguapo]

1)  There is a photo of the drawing on the  thread (which I linked to on my first post)  an image on page 139, which is a black and white chalk on board image, from the Museum of London book.

2) I had a very VERY close look at the bowl again last night.  The base, as mentioned, does look moulded.  But I find it odd that it also has a pontil mark? WHY?

 3) The vertical lines could also be moulded, but the circle design between the vertical lines really are deeply and sharply cut.  Could it be that this bowl is a "fusion" of both moulded and cut?  Still doesn't explain to me why the Pontil mark though?

Of course I would love this bowl to be a Whitefriars one, but I am now more intrigued as to the method of making as well.  I did not buy it because of the likelihood it was W/F but because I liked the bowl. Only when I got it home did I begin to think about the very few similar designs by William Wilson of Whitefriars (cutting by Albert Tubby).

[Max]

Don't know if this helps, but;  Page 132 Whitefriars Glass, bottom vase - flint and cut.  Explanatory wording says "The vase on the right (iv) designed by William Wilson, is turn mould-blown...".

Would 'turn mould-blown' and then cut, give the result that Emmi has?  :huh:

[Cathy B]

I think so. I think (and can someone correct me if I've got it wrong), "turn mould blown" means getting a gather on the punty, blowing it into a symmetrical mould, spinning in the mould to eliminate seams, then cracking off the pontil as you would with a free-blown piece and possibly polishing the pontil scar.

Edited to add: Actually that doesn't make sense at all, does it. Okay, can someone who understands the process explain?

On third thoughts - there is a polished rim so it does make sense! . The missing step is cutting the top off and polishing the rim. And after that, cutting to give the pattern.

[WhatHo!]

What Ho! Here is a picture of my bowl which is in the same range as Emmi's, which sparked the original debate on WF.com. I also have a vase with the same cut as Emmi's bowl and I will put a pic up of that soon. Neither my vase or the bowl are moulded, the bowl is cut all the way underneath and the vase is flat ground top and base.

[nigel benson]

Hi,

There are a number of points that can be made around this series of wares.

1) As far as I'm aware none of the pieces that have come to light over the years relate to shapes produced by W/F's and shown in their catalogues. Of course it's not impossible for a catalogue by them to turn up and confound us all (or prove the point!), but it is unlikely, given the interest in the work by that factory and the research into the archives held at the Museum of London - which suggests that by now something should have come to light.

3) The shape of the bowl that Wolfie has kindly added to the thread is synonymous with a number of makers, but not W/F's; S&W and Czech would be two known sources. (Unfortunately I didn't record the one I had!).

2) The colour is similar to a number of manufacturers, including W/F's and Czech origins.

3) Cutting on turn mould blown items was done by a number of British manufacturers, not to mention other countires, including Czechoslovakia.

4) Most of the cut range by WJ Wilson and Albert Tubby that are catalogued are scarce, but not all. Therefore, the piece that is shown as chalk on a black board in the MoL book on W/F's (which does not appear in the catalogues) may never have been made; or, may have been made for an exhibition, or as a special commission; or, could possibly have been put into production. None of the possible options is clear, however what is clear, is that, to date, no example has been recorded.

5) The chalk drawing gives rise to interpretation, some say that the lines on the cutting represent vertical cutting along one of the faces of the mitre cut. Further, where there are polished roundels it can be interpreted that it is one roundel inside another. The alternative reading of the drawing is that this is shading to give a three dimensional look to what would otherwise be a difficult to read representation. I favour the latter.

6) There are many examples of cutting emanating from Czechoslovakia that include multiple cuts produced by one wheel (it would have a 'serrated' profile) whereas, although there are examples by British manufacturers they are far less frequent - it does include several designs by Keith Murray, therefore we know that S&W used these cutting wheels.

None of the above observations are conclusive in any way, but are proffered to stimulate thought.

Nigel

[Patrick]

Hi,
 Very good observations Nigel and I also had thought that the cuts were made with special serrated diamond wheels and certainly the recessed circular cuts ( almost impossible to do by a freehand cutting wheel )

The only thing that I can add to these observations is that I would have expected to see Amber examples if they were WF.  Certainly 50% of Wilson cut bowls and vases have been in Amber.

 Regards,
                Patrick.

[Patrick]

Hi,
 I have just talked to someone who has seen these bowls and he says they are probably Czech and are molded glass. The pattern/cutting (in the molding ) is then OVERCUT, usually by machine and the pontil is added to give the impression of a handmade piece.
 The glass is good quality but not of a very high lead content...............
 Regards,
                Patrick.

[vidrioguapo]

That sounds that it could be right Patrick.........I'll bring mine to Cambridge at end of February, and perhaps Wolfie can bring his bowl and vase too, and we can compare the items to see if they are exactly the same method of production.

[nigel benson]

Hi,

If that is happening, I have a powder box from the series that I can bring. It would be good to have a reminder nearer the time, since there is so much else to bring along!

Nigel

[WhatHo!]

What Ho! Here is the pic of the vase. Having a close look at the cutting it doesn't look clean enough for WF, I feel certainly that my initial thoughts about these being Whitefriars is wrong.