Topic: Engraved or cut? antique? clear footed bowl with underplate

[johnphilip]

Yes it is a minefield as several of the best cutters went to Tudor when their firms closed down .

[flying free]

Hi John, I'd read a little about some Walsh Walsh personnel going to Tudor, and I was aware of the Stourbridge Glass co because I'd read about it regarding another piece.  But to be honest the whole set up is so confusing (I mean I can't even keep the various Webb's and their son's in the right order  in my head) that I lost the will to live somewhere along the line today - without even going into which other factories closed and who went where.
I shall use it as a learning curve.  I want to find a good, old piece of decorative (rather then geometric) cut/intaglio glass so I shall keep searching.  In the meantime it will continue to sit on my shelf looking very beautiful.  Thanks so much for your help and to all who have replied so far though.  It is much appreciated.
m

[Paul S.]

Hadn't intended to show this plate, as the method/style of engraving is sufficiently different from m's original pieces........however, since Ming has now mentioned Jack Lloyd - and as this one does have some design features similar to Ming's - thought it worthwhile, especially as this piece is  signed J. Lloyd  -  I've written "Stourbridge - Jack Lloyd c.1935" on the plate.

This is not Rock Crystal engraving, which is defined as possessing deep cutting, with polishing within the cuts etc., but am I correct in suggesting this might be a style of intaglio cutting called 'Polished Bright', which may have had its origins at Thomas Webb earlier in the C20?

Pieces shown earlier in this thread showed standard intaglio, i.e. areas within the cutting were very smooth (although not necessarily highly polished).    On this plate, the engraved areas retain the lines made by the wheel, and which have then been highly polished, producing a sort of bright watery effect.     The flowers have been left slightly matt.         I can't see from the pix, whether any of Ming's pieces show polished grinding lines within the cutting, but the series of short dashes (middle piece) are certainly a common feature with my bowl.
This style of cutting appears to be very much in the minority, when compared to the overall volume of intaglio cut material - but it may not have been confined to Thomas Webb and Stourbridge Glass Co., only, although I don't know who else produced it.

However, none of this helps m - and it's possible we may not get an id for her piece due to the variety of producers of intaglio cut pieces

Ref. '20th Century British Glass'  -  Charles R. Hajdamach  -  Chapter Fourteen.

[flying free]

Paul, I just wanted to clarify as I still don't really understand all the differences and nuances, but on my bowl and plate all the cuts are highly polished and show no matt surfaces at all on any of the cut bits.  The photos I took of close ups were to show the engraving lines which can be seen when greatly enlarged, but otherwise the pieces both look to be cut and highly polished afterwards in real life, though they have the same kind of 'watery effect' as yours close up. I thought rock crystal engraving was where the surface was cut in a raised effect as well as using intaglio where it is cut into    I need to investigate more but I still can't find my lovely little book  :cry:
m

[chopin-liszt]

I was getting in a right tangle with getting hold of what exactly Rock Crystal cut is with my decanter (which is possibly John Orchard for S&W).

I believe one of the cardinal features is that the whole thing is acid polished. I had thought that cutting which borders on the sculptural was neccessary, but it's not.
This is a pic of an Edinburgh Crystal "Iona" wine glass, my decanter and a Tudor wine glass.
(sorry my decanter pics are not good, and I don't have it to take more)

[Paul S.]

there's quite a good resume re rock crystal glass in chapter eleven in Hajdamach 'British Glass 1800 - 1914'  -  too long to quote here, unfortunately.    It seems to be characterized by a naturalistic and flowing style, rather than the angular fairly straightforward mitre cutting we know from so much boring C20 cut glass.
I don't think that one of the prerequisites though was acid polishing, and not sure that there is a need to get too involved in rock crystal glass just now, as none of the original pieces here come under that heading anyway.   Sorry Sue :kissy:  luv your bits tho.

quote from m........"I thought rock crystal engraving was where the surface was cut in a raised effect as well as using intaglio where it is cut into.    I need to investigate more but I still can't find my lovely little book" 
and a quote from Hajdamach........."Because the cutting is later covered by engraving"...........is possibly what you were thinking about m??
and what is the lovely little book that you can't find ...........Hajdamach is NOT a little book - too bothery heavy.

[chopin-liszt]

I dug out the pic as much for the Tudor wine glass as the decanter, (although r-c stuff was mentioned too) perhaps it is inappropriate.  :pb:
But it does show three different cutting styles!
I have been trying to follow this thread.  :ooh:

[flying free]

Sue, I have also been trying to follow this thread   and your Tudor Glass again has similarities and I think this thread is a good place for it.  There are now quite a few items pictured and I'm still no further forward on my piece - except that consensus seems to be that my bowl is getting younger by the minute.  

I do think especially given John's observation of cutters moving companies, that I will not get a definite id possibly.  
I'm also hard pushed still, to understand why someone would be making footed bowls with underplates into the 50's....unless they were high end pieces.  I can understand the engraving patterns being similar, but a footed bowl and underplate?  I don't buy that many people were purchasing these as regular items mid century.

 I think it has turned into an interesting thread.  We don't get to discuss much cut glass on the board really and certainly when I've posted a piece before it received no replies, so thanks for adding your beautiful pieces.
m

[chopin-liszt]

Are footed bowls with underplates not for grapefruit?
The underplate for the pips and to place the spoon when finished.

I love this set of Tudor wineglasses I have. They originally belonged to my Grandpa, have been in the family since I was a tiny tot. I have nearly 8 of them.
The "nearly" one is one which my Dad repaired with Araldite epoxy resin. It's just the foot - the glass is usable - just not presentable.
My Dad loved his Araldite.

[flying free]

I can say with some certaintly that I dont' think it is a grapefruit bowl.  It is the wrong shape, the half of grapefruit would perch precariously in the top and wobble around and it flares out widely with a narrower base.  It may have been a dessert bowl I think, but with underplate to look good? 
there is a something interesting on it, where the bowl narrows into the stem at the bottom, if you feel it, it is perfectly and deliberately ridged in an undulating way - as though it has been 'gathered' into a point to match the stem...not hugely, not clumsily, but very lightly and deliberately and impossible to photograph to get the effect.  A nice piece of design.