Topic: Monart mini miniature ?

[RAY]

just a shot in the dark with this one, it measures 2" and just over 2" across at the widest point, it has a clear applied foot, the colour is like a peppermint green and white powdered glass that has been applied over a clear glass , the small black marks are in the glass , the rim is rounded and smooth not ground and polished, the pontil has been fire polished ... if not a monart mini any thoughts what it could be

click image

[chopin-liszt]

Hi Ray - I'm sorry, I really don't think it's a Monart miniature - it's far, far too thick. It just doesn't look like a "miniature" version of anything - it is what it is - a small footed pot.

What about looking in the direction of Teign Valley glass???
It does look a bit Caithnessy - but for the black bits.
It does look kind of familiar, but not something I'm personally acquainted with.
I'd start in the uk, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it went Italian.

[flying free]

 there is a faint possibility this could be a Will Shakspeare vase.
He uses this mint green and I think has used the stripes.
If so, somewhere on the foot, very minutely marked and VERY faint, you may  find a mark that says SHAKS
My only reservation is that the feet on his vases are normally straight sided rather than sloping outwards and the sides of his vase are often fairly straight up rather than curved... but not always.
m

[Frank]

I would say unlikely too but the size would have an effect on how it could be made and the colour is found in Monart. Worth doing a spoke count and comparing with KevH's spoke count thread/s. If the numbers don't match it is defo not Monart, if the do match it is Probo not Monart but might be.  That foot is a little Peter Holmes'ish too. JD would also be a contender. I think the amount of frit in it is a clue too but not quite sure of what it is a clue to. Certainly you find the odd piece of Monart that looks like it was made in a soot factory... so again not an eliminator. Last contender is that this is one of the Jackson 'sample' fakes with the label removed... but I do not recall seeing one like this before and I think I saw most of them. Incidentally I was told those had been made in a London studio.

[chopin-liszt]

I agree the fritty bits are definitely a clue, (but to what, I am clueless) but Monart miniatures LOOK like miniature versions of big pieces - in every respect - including the glass being quite thin.
It doesn't look like the Monart "combed" effect in the stripey bits.......
My vote is definitely not Monart.

[RAY]

thanks all for the replies, it looks better in the raw, there are 20 spokes Frank the same as the ones on Kev site and on the salvador weight i sold a bit back, the powder glass spokes and the black bits are the same as in the weight,  thats what got me thinking it could be monart

[Frank]

including the glass being quite thin.

The glass looks thin enough, it is under 2" at the opening... quite hard to imagine so small which makes the glass seem super thick. Ray how does the thickness of the glass compare with Monart in general?

As to shape, it falls between W and XB and considering the size, a tad smaller than the average miniature, it does fall within the realms of possibility. Main fuzz factor is that the foot is not dusted. Which 99% are. An aside, I saw a cased foot piece recently, that is almost as rare.

My vote is possibly Monart. I doubt you could prove it further unless you found who it was made for... probably as a salt.

[Frank]

p.s. on stripes... I was bothered too but then realised that the size of the parison was probably larger than the finished piece and only had minimal blowing and twisting with a lot cut off so they are much closer together than normally seen except in the ground of a paperweight. Needs to be compared to a Monart paperweight with the same green ground to see if the effect is the same.

[RAY]

the opening is 2" dead and i've had my micrometer out and the thickness of the glass is 4mm , was looking at the codes on your site Frank and thought AG is very close

[Frank]

Having now handled this piece I can say definitely that it is not Monart. Simply the wrong glass. Leaning more towards Peter Holmes as this is so clearly Ysart style and well made.