Topic: a very curious cut piece - pulled feathered perfume but also cut over the top

[flying free]

I only bought this because I was so curious as to why someone would go to the trouble of blowing a piece with a pulled feathered design in it, then cutting all over the top of it so the design couldn't be seen.  Flat polished base bevelled at the edges, missing it's atomiser top. About 5" tall. The feathered bottle cased in thick clear glass with very deep cutting.
The pics were difficult because the cutting obscures the design, but hopefully you can see the feathered white bits, which are actually all over the bottle in loops going right up the shoulders to the neck.
m

[chopin-liszt]

 
It's not water staining, is it?

[flying free]

Nope definitely it isn't.
I did wonder whether someone made a piece where the feathering was so faint, that they thought 'oh bother, good blown piece, feathering doesn't look that great, I'll just cut all over it to make it more desirable' 
It's old I think though - mind you the same midset would still apply regardless of how old I guess.
m

[chopin-liszt]

A lot of cutting work used to be carried out on what would nowadays be considered "inferior" quality blanks.

Producing any sort of blank was expensive and work intensive - they were all used, if at all possible.

It was simply because the technology and chemistry hadn't been refined the way they are now.

( Very early on in collecting, my brother and his OH left an Irene Stevens vase sitting on a shelf - at a very, very desirable price - because it had a couple of small bubbles and bits of frit in it they decided it couldn't possibly be "right".)
Now, we know if there's a lot of work done on "inferior" blanks, it's because they're probably genuinely very old.

[flying free]

I had been wondering whether or not to get a replacement top for this and decided to have another investigate.
I've some more pictures though it's a hard one to photograph.
I can go with Sue's possible explanation of cutting over an 'inferior' blank, but this was a thickly blown piece with the feathering on the interior and very thick outer exterior.  I wonder whether it has been done deliberately, blown in such a way knowing it would be cut over the top.  The cutting is very deep, the base casing also shows how thick the outer is (hopefully it will show better in the pics).  In the first photo you should be able to see the narrowness of the interior as the pulled feathering show through as a narrow neck in the middle.
Any ideas of age?  I thought maybe 1910s ish earliest? - I'm assuming it had a pump mechanism as per the neck rim. P.s I've only called the pics Nailsea so I can find them in my long list of photos and know what it is.
Thanks for looking 
m

[Ekimp]

I quite like this…apart from the feathering

My understanding of cutting items like this is that it’s not that easy and would require quite a bit of design work to get the cutting to fit properly. I thought they would have specific cutting patterns to fit specific shapes - it would be too much work to design the cut pattern (or adjust an existing one) for a one off that otherwise hadn’t turned out as intended? I think it was always intended to be cut.

I was looking up a tumbler a while ago that I thought might be Empire/Biedermeier transition, that had the leaf shapes that your bottle has on the shoulders. Ref Harrach book page 71 plate 48, text on page 67 second column. I suppose the feathering would rule that period out though?

I wonder if it might be a bit tall and unstable for an atomiser, maybe it had a hinged lid.

[flying free]

I don't have it anymore but recall it being quite heavy for size.
I don't know if the feathering would rule out that period but I thought the leaf design might fit but not the cutting on the panels somehow.
It was a bit of a mish mash all in all and I thought in the end perhaps late Victorian because of the design of the cut panels? It's probably much earlier  but wasn't special enough for me to keep.  Would have kept it if it were coloured glass

m