Topic: Hukin and Heath - Christopher Dresser? preserve pot with silver base

[flying free]

Hi JP
You should be able to click on the envelope next to my post? and contact me via my email?
if you can't please let me know as you have your email address hidden and I can't contact you.

Many thanks for your help.  I do appreciate it.  I went to the Library yesterday but there were no books on Dresser pieces nor anything much in any of their design books.  I did find Millers 2009 which had I think, a preserve stand but no bottles if I recall correctly, and that had a design no in the 1000's, but was not the same piece as mine.

thanks
m

[Lustrousstone]

Neither of you have your emails publically viewable. You need to change your profiles.

[johnphilip]

Thanks Christine i didnt notice it was hidden . :kissy: Must be da teknikal gissard

[flying free]

Hi JP I've sent you an email now. Many thanks.
And thanks Christine - I haven't worked out how to undo my email yet, but I'll try.
m

[Bernard C]

M. — see Mystery Arts & Crafts Condiment Set in Glass and EPNS for a similar rod and ball mount, although by Travis, Wilson & Co Ltd of Sheffield and dated 1910, not H&H, together with some discussion on the style.

The glass pot is almost certainly Walsh's Kenilworth pattern, launched 1925, still being produced postwar, and possibly went with the cut glass team to Tudor in 1951.   See Reynolds pl.18, figs.58 & 101.   I could tell you for certain if I handled it.   This goes some way to explaining the staples, as Walsh cut glass was always on the pricey side, making a repair worthwhile.   Check for a Walsh or Walsh England mark as sometimes it is very faint indeed.   Don't worry if it's not marked — all the Greater Stourbridge glassworks made unmarked cut, much of it for buyers who didn't like marks.   Lack of a mark here does not indicate a second.

Hope that helps,

Bernard C. 

[nigel benson]

Hi,

Bun feet on silver were by no means exclusive to Christopher Dresser. If Bernard is right, and I believe he is, that the glass is Walsh, and dated 1925 then maybe a re-think is called for?

The chasing in the silver mearly reflects the pattern of cutting on the glass, and IMHO is not a Dresser design I'm afraid.

Like Monsieur L'obbs I have a number of books on Dresser, including the thought provoking one by Chris Morley, and I would tend to drop on the side of not Dresser - but it's always worth checking  

Nigel

[johnphilip]

I agree with Nigel and Bernard  after looking thru the books, the metal work does have similarities and is H&H but not nessesarilly Dresser . A couple of years back i had two  pieces dismissed by a couple of experts but those same experts have offered to buy those pieces in the last twelve months as for the glass ,yes it is probably a Walsh Walsh replacment- Kenilworth i believe , i sold an H&H claret jug with the same cut glass the Auction house described the lot as Christopher Dresser,  it sold above estimate .

[flying free]

 thank you all so very much for your fantastic help on this - I really appreciate it  
So, my thoughts are these:
-  I cannot deny that we need to pay some bills and so would love it to be a Dresser piece
hence my keen interest in id'ing ( will have to sell another piece of glass instead ) however,
- even if I hadn't had that small hope that it might be, I would still love to find out something about it as a) it is absolutely outside my realm of collecting and something I would never, ever, usually even look at never mind buy and b) when I bought it, it was one of those instances where my hand just went out automatically and picked it up so it clearly had 'wow' factor somehow.

So, if I forget the bills that need paying and just concentrate instead on having some fun, this is what I've come up with:
Against
1) I agree that there are many makers who have made similar pieces with the rail and ball, the bun feet etc
2) There are some nice touches to this piece that presumably reflect the fact it was made by a good designer somewhere along the line but also could just reflect a good maker
3) I can see that there are marked similarities with the butter dish metal base that apparently has an RD no 789791 - which according to that seller is for year 1934 - it does look to be the same design as my base.  And from the metal base on that dish  it seems my lid is the correct match as the handles on my lid seem to match the handles on that butter dish base.
4) The glass jar on mine seems to work very well with the shape of the metal base (the glass pot has the corners cut off and left plain which seems to work in my holder) and the date Bernard has given for it being Walsh Kenilworth , the design of which dates to 1925 and that was still being produced in 1934, would support that date of the registered design 1934 above
5)   I have found another Hukin and Heath piece (cruet with cut glass bottles in wood base with silver banding, bun feet and handle, marked H&H) with a similar handle to my lid and  the bun feet,  and is not attributed to Dresser.  the lids on the glass pieces in this date to 1872.  Of course they may be a marriage with the box base.

http://www.kaminskiauctions.com/dec29p2.htm
scroll down a few and the picture is there

6) my base piece is not marked with the Dresser mark or a registered design no, and the lid and spoon are not marked at all

For:
1) The serial/design number on my base is 1177.  As far as I can see this would be an early serial number, if it were related to Dresser serial/design numbers for Hukin and Heath.  The design numbers for the Dresser designs for Hukin and heath that I have found, go back to 1000 numbers, one of which is number 1867 on a condiment set registered design for year 1878.
Christopher Dresser's assocation with Hukin and Heath started in 1877 if what I have read is correct?  Therefore this could be an early design by him dating to around 1877/1878. I cannot fathom why a piece produced by Hukin and Heath in 1934 would have a  number of 1177 on the back when they had been in business , what,  c.80yrs then?  So it doesn't fit in with it being one of their own design/serial numbers either unless it makes it a really early piece in their own inventory, which I think is unlikely?

2) my piece does not have a registered design number on it at all.  Merely the H&H plate stamp plus the serial/design number.  Could it be an earlier piece before his designs were registered ?  Why does it not have a rd design number on it?
3) From the silver hall marks I found, if I read it correctly it appears to me H&H used this mark 1881-1882 and 1823 - 37 with the H&H appearing separately in ovals (I got the dates wrong in my previous posts)- would this translate to the  silver plate mark of the H & H all being separately within ovals?.  If so it would support against it being 1877/8 then I guess (amended post) but I'm not sure the marks will translate to silver plate being marked in the same way.

4) The base box in the linked piece could be a marriage and made later than the jars- but I have doubts it would be a 1930's marriage with jars that date to 1872.  So could the jars and lids be a marriage?  If they are originally with each other, then this box could be an 1870's piece which would support my preserve pot being an earlier design (though not necessarily a Dresser design granted)
5) If I have read JP's reply correctly (and apologies if I have misunderstood), this could be a replacement glass piece in my set. An old repair, but perhaps on a reaplacement piece anyway?
Any further comments very much welcomed - do my arguments make sense? :wsh:
thanks again
m

[flying free]

Bernard, I have examined it in detail and as far as I can see it's not marked which is a shame.
Everyones help has been invaluable, and I hope you don't think by my response that I haven't been listening to your comments - I am just querying the odd things that occur to me about this piece and I'm not ready to ascribe it to 1934 at the moment 
m

[nigel benson]

OK, lets look at your suggestions under "For".


It is quite possible for a company to produce a design for long, even extended periods of time - especially if it has been a good seller. This would make it possible for an item to have a serial, or design number on the base that dates from much earlier, but not a registration mark.

It is probable that the marks on the silver (plate) have nothing to do with the glass, although logically since the design matches one would imagine that it was correct (possibly making the other piece you have linked to having the wrong glass?).

If I have read it correctly, I'm afraid I don't understand the reference to 80 years of a company's existence as being relevant, surely it is the date of the item that matters?

It is a given to assume replacement glass when it comes from a later date to the item in question, but just because the glass comes form an earlier date it doesn't necessarily mean it is right. It is quite possible that items made in earlier times (in this case glass), in a particular tradition, are likely to fit. However, given the strong pattern linking the silverplate and the glass on your piece it would at least suggest that the two are matching and original, since it is difficult enough to find replacements that fit, without having to match the pattern. I guess that it is also possible for the glass to be changed if made over a period of time, since suppliers may well change, however this glass looks a dead ringer to me.

I'm am deliberately being a devil's advocate here since it is so very easy to fall into the trap of believing what you want something to be, rather than accepting what is likely to be true. Believe me, we have all done it!! Keep an open mind, whilst still hoping for the best, or, if selling, list, describe, and let the market decide.

Whatever you decide, good luck

Nigel