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

[glassobsessed]

I have to agree with Nigel about wanting or hoping for a particular attribution, it can easily sway your opinion, it's a bit like wearing blinkers. It keeps happening to me......

John

[johnphilip]

Not all Dresser items fetch a high price at the moment ,for instance the pieces i sold to the Brooklyn Museum of Decorative Arts went for the opening bid . not a lot .

[flying free]

thanks all   :kissy: 
Just for the record, as I said earlier on in the thread, I'd love it to be a Dresser design because then it might have paid the lecky bill, but honest guv, I'm not trying to make it into something it's not    not even in my head    It's just there is an unanswered question regarding a valid point I made about the age of the serial/design number on the base of this piece.

Nigel it seems we are agreeing are we not - quote
'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.
i.e my base could have been designed many years earlier than 1934.

Whilst I agree the lid and the glass appear to be a correct match (and would therefore date to 1925 onwards using the glass as the date, and perhaps 1934 using the butter dish base with handles registered design to affirm this), the serial number on the base of my piece remains something to be investigated in terms of when it was designed.  I am thinking that the glass and lid could have been designed and made to fit (as a deliberate design by H&H) into a base that was designed many years earlier. 
The butter dish registered design date would answer that question, but I don't know what the parameters and latitudes are of a registered design.  What I mean is, if the design for my base was registered years earlier, would the adaptation of it, by the addition of handles (for the butter dish), denote a new design, and therefore require it to be registered in it's own right as a new design, hence that butter base having a registered design number for 1934.  If the answer to that is no, then I guess I have to admit defeat.

I will contact the registered designs office on Monday and see if I can trace the number somehow 

JP thanks- until I have answered my question I think I have no intention of selling it.  And even then perhaps not, because without the association of Dresser I suspect the value on these things is not high (or not high enough to pay for the amount of electricity we are consuming )

thanks for all your help everyone, much appreciated.
m

[agincourt17]

RD 789791 was registered by Hoskins, Rose and Co. on 8 February 1934). Items from that RD number were  presumably made in Czechosovakia because they appear as part of  the Libochovice # 146X series (see their catalogue pre-1958 on the Newhall Sklo-Union CD-ROM.

See the GMB discussion on a lidded box or dish in the pattern (quite possibly an example of the ‘butter dish’ referred to in relies #4 and #22) at
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,54940.new.html#new

Fred.

[flying free]

Thank you Fred
I'm not sure how this ties in with the cut glass jar in my piece though? I'm a bit confused.
Apart from date where Bernard has given a date on the jar pattern from Walsh Walsh.

I think the glass on my piece is different to the glass in the butter dish isn't it?

m

[agincourt17]

RD 789791 was referred to in reply #4 and reply #22, presumably as guide to possible date of your piece.

Fred.

[flying free]

Thanks Fred
The link's not working now as the butter dish has been removed, but I recall on rereading, that I thought the glass of that butter dish was not original to and was a marriage to the metal holder. 
Or I suppose it is possible Hukin and Heath used pressed glass Czech butter dishes and also cut glass Walsh Walsh pieces for their inserts?  That feels a bit strange - one feels like a high quality item (and someone cared enough about my jar to have it repaired with staples), and the other is I presume a mass produced pressed glass item?  Would Hukin and Heath have been producing that kind of variety with their items?
m

[agincourt17]

As far as I am aware, Hukin & Heath were always regarded as manufacturers of high quality items, and I would have though that using Czech pressed glass inerts was not in line with their image or marketing ethos.

Fred.