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

[chopin-liszt]

Other types of fruit with stones or pips?

[Paul S.]

sorry for sounding a little insensitive Sue  -  I was rushing, as usual.    Looking again at Hajdamach, it seems that RC was intially cut very deeply, often showing massive wrythen-shaped pillars, gadroons and roundels  -  and the really skillful part then involved creating a lot of wheel engraving within those deep intial cuts - just have a look at some of the decanters in Hajdamach, they're mind blowing.   If you wish, please continue talking about RC for as long as you care

I could be way off target, but get the impression that underplates were more a relic of the C19 - if you look at C20 pieces (the standard grapefruit bowl for example), the 'pip' tray is an incorporated part of the unit, and not a separate item.
Is the role of these two pieces of m's such that one needs must stand upon the other??           
If you look in Jackson (Whitefriars) there are illustrations of shallow plate type pieces (from the late C19) that are described as ice plates and figer bowl stands.
Don't see why m's item couldn't just as easily be something like the plate on which a finger bowl would sit.         I'm just not entirely happy that the comport part must sit on the plate - size wise it seems a bit of overkill.        Just my thoughts you understand.  

[chopin-liszt]

I've only got the 20th century Hajdamach, Paul.
I'm trying to avoid old and/or cut stuff, it's just my interest in all things glass keeps dragging me into this mire of death-by-thousands-of-cuts on cold glass surfaces.  :grrr:

 :ghug:

[johnphilip]

The Glass Association has some great booklets on cut glass and rock crystal with good pictures and text , i believe they will be in the foyer at Cambridge and you can get back issues . Good value for money and even better if you join . jp remember its one week tomorrow . SUNDAY 26 FEB . Wear some ID so we can avoid the ones we dont like . or  :pb:

[Lustrousstone]

An underplate gives you somewhere to put your sticky spoon and your pips and saves the table cloth. It also catches the dribbles. Glass bowls tend to be less spoon friendly that ceramic ones. Lots of glass dessert sets had underplates and not just cut glass ones. There are quite a few Davidson ones, for example, made well post war. And of course you could use the plates for gateauxy type things.

[Paul S.]

my thanks to Lustrousstone for clarifying the situation  -   although in Surrey one doesn't dribble, don't you know

Cut glass appears to get less of a good press here than most other types  -  which might be down to the unrelenting boredom of the zillion pieces of bog standard mitre cut material churned out over the last 100 years  -  and it's difficult (in ordinary circumstances) to find things like Queensbury or Luxton designs unless you pay an arm and a leg.      It seems obvious from the pieces posted on the GMB, that there is a mega fold greater interest in coloured glass of whatever quality, as opposed to clear material  -  maybe we human beans just have this thing about colour, or perhaps it just that old thing called fashion

What's wrong with old Sue, you get real history that way.

[flying free]

I'm off to start a new thread on coloured glass v colourless  :thup:
otherwise this will get diverted
m

[chopin-liszt]

History ain't my subject, Paul. I failed my O-level. :thud:
My taste in art seems to encompass mediaeval work, then it briefly skims Art Nouveau before diving head first, deeply and profoundly into modernism, post modernism and contemporary. (skipping minimalism and a great deal of "brit art")

Of the period of several hundred years I miss out, I only like the romantic classics in music. All other art forms leave me cold. I have tried them - I do try all art - you never know when it might happen that something you think you might not like, turns out to be something you do.  :thup:

[Paul S.]

sorry to hear your views on history Sue  -  'history' is a fate that befalls of all of us (and everything around us) - it's so much a part of life that to 'not take an interest' seems to me to avoid deliberately those very things that make us what we are.   Surely, Boswell and Johnson taking a trip round the Western Isles can't fail to bring a tear/smile to your eye, and the injustice toward the Tolpuddle Martyrs must make you despair of fair play, and doesn't William Wallace at least bring out the nationalism in you - Scots uniting against the bullying Sassenachs (bit like Salmond and Cameron right now ).       History aint all Romans and pillaging Vikings
Art Nouveau is too good to briefly skim (correctly it should be 'skim briefly' - adverb at the end ), it leads on into the whole vogue of Symbolism, Arts and Crafts, Mackintosh -but when you say Medieval do you mean like Morris that you are into the pre-Raphaelite what's its.    You must surely like Durer, and how about Bosch?
As for the C20 - too many 'isms'  -  too much conceptual art, Jackson Pollock, Warhol and soup cans and the like....ughhhh.

But I do agree that we should try many things, otherwise you might be missing out on something that appealed, massively.

Sorry Anne  -  please delete or throw us into the cafe.

[chopin-liszt]

Bosch is my very favourite artist.
And the problem with history is that is is written by the winners, so it's all lies and nobody EVER learns from it, despite the whole point of the study of history being to avoid doing the same stupid things over and over.

I suffered from history lessons being nothing more than tons of dates to be learned off by rote.

I'm taking more of an interest now - particularly in lost bits of history - such as the Picts and the most important battle in british history ever - the battle of Dunnichen, which defined the border between Scotland and England, when the Picts drove the king of Northumbria back. AD 685.