Topic: Stuart bowl.

[Paul S.]

For those who may have an interest in Stuart.     Backstamp indicating probably from somewhere in late 1920's to 1950 ish, and high quality ground/polished pontil mark as you'd expect from this factory.       Diameter is about 9.75"/250mm.       Stuart seem to have been keen on this barrel shaped body, but I don't see this design in the one or two books I've tried - perhaps a little obsure.   Wondered if I might be missing a centre frog possibly - hope not, and unfortunately the backstamp doesn't include a Design Reg. No.      Did Stuart ever use uranium - can't remember if I've ever seen a piece that glowed.

[Anne]

This was one of the first shapes I remember from when I was a board newbie.

Max had a clear one: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,2280.0.html and Nemmie had an amber one: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35318.0.html and there's a uranium green one on Tony Hayter's site here: http://1st-glass.1st-things.com/gallery-deco/slides/artdecobowlvaseline03.html all identified as Stuart...  and yet they look different to yours Paul, so now I'm wondering if they were made somewhere else as yours is marked...  can you compare them and see what you think...?

[Paul S.]

thanks for the sleuthing Anne - and certainly the three examples you have linked appear identical in design, and differ substantially from my posie bowl.       The most obvious noticeably ways in which my bowl is different are:..................body is more bulbous and terminates in a large flared foot.    Mine does not have the 'bird bath' base, and instead has the typical Stuart flat base with high quality ground/polished pontil mark.        On mine, the large flat top drops into the well sharply, rather than curving gently, and whereas your three show twelve moulded lines traversing the top, mine has sixteen.
I'm not sure what source was used originally for provenance re Tony Hayter's example  -  I wasn't able to see an image when I had a look in my books, which was admittedly not very thorough.
However, in view of the backstamp on my bowl, no doubt of its origins.                I could be completely wrong, but don't recall seeing any Stuart production that glowed.

[chopin-liszt]

We can't actually see the shape of your thing's bottom in your pics, Paul.
I picked up a large Stuart posy thing in amber recently - but until your last comment, I thought my thing was quite different to yours. Mine has a bulbous bodied bottom and a flat footed base.
(it's starting to sound like some sort of medical anomaly)

[Paul S.]

oh what a dipstick I am........just realized as I scrolled down the page that I had foregotten to include the picture of the body/foot.       So, for all those who are wondering what the devil is going on, here it is......
Actually Sue, I think mine is really quite different from yours

[Paul S.]

and have you posted images of your amber Stuart posy thing?  -   I don't recall seeing anything, or have I missed seeing them?

[chopin-liszt]

No, Paul, I haven't even taken it out of its newspaper wrapping - it's still in hiding from M.
But it's the same as yours, except amber. Marked on the foot.

[johnphilip]

Hi Paul i sold one that shape in clear glass with deep cutting a few weeks back , you can probably see it in completed listings if you want .

[Paul S.]

why are you hiding it Sue, is there an embargo on further purchases of glass    

jp - no I haven't looked at the listings, just that my bowl is a mould blown piece (do they spin these things to get the massively flared top) - and you're talking about cutting.??
Did Stuart offer the same design in both moulded and cut versions?     Sorry to seem thick.

[chopin-liszt]

There's an embargo on anything which takes up more "space" in the house, Paul - the problem being lack of any spare space anywhere!