Topic: peacock eye trailed vases - Stuart or Walsh? late 19th or Edwardian?

[flying free]

Hi Nigel
Thanks for responding.  I'm not sure what you meant by this comment 'I saw this thread when it first started and frankly decided not to make any comment when the first four posts were all made by the original questioner. This left me realing with the number of questions asked and the complexity that had been created. The thread has gone on and only seemed to get worse '.
  I thought this was a Glass discussion board, therefore I assumed it would be okay to put my questions on.  And I don't believe what I wrote was complex.  I was simply asking some questions and hoping someone would comment in return on whether or not I was making the right connections, or not.

I'm using a Harrods retail catalogue to help work out my question/problem, because they are catalogue pages I own with peacock eye or applied trailed vases on them (of which I currently own about 12 related vases).  And I don't own or have access to the Stuart pattern books.   I am fully aware that whilst the catalogue pages 'might' help, they wont solve the problem because as I've written elsewhere, you can probably only rely on pattern books to be sure of where an item originated from ... and even that is in doubt I guess with Mike's comments on other threads that Harrach were probably making glass for other manufacturers.
 
The pages from the catalogue with  the trailed vases variously state 'Handmade English Glass', 'Perfect combination.English Manufacture', 'Best English Manufacture', 'In Finest English Crystal', 'English flower tubes in best cut crystal', 'English Flower tubes in flint or green' 'The "English Jewel"' - I was therefore assuming until proved otherwise that they were English made pieces.
In addition to which, some of the catalogue pages I own also happen to have been published in the Journal of the Glass Association vol 5 1997 (which I also have a copy of) in an article by Lesley Jackson with a comment by her underneath of '...probably made in Stourbridge or Birmingham'. That article and those vases  in the reproduced catalogue pages in that article, have also been cited as reference in a published Glass book.  That reference is one I am querying in connection with the vase I am trying to identify, which I do not wish to put on the board.  And that was why I was trying to work out who made the vases in the Lesley Jackson article reproduced Harrods catalogue pages.

Thank you for your detailed explanation of how the Miller's guides are published and from where the information derives.
I guess your comments mean it is right to question most identification unless it is a  supported by a pattern book reference. I was merely putting the information on here as it is published information.  I was using it to demonstrate that there seems to be conflict on who made particular pieces. 
I fully understand that many manufacturers could have made pieces with similarities of design and colour.  Which leads me to question even more the information that is in books and on the web unless it has a pattern number attached to it as a reference.  I own a few glass books now, only about 26 admittedly but many of them cost me a lot of money (and sold glass) to buy.  I find there are discrepancies in them (raised here on the board) and it then makes me query other things, but they are good to have.  They would be better if they a) always contained a base shot of each piece and b) were more like Gulliver's Victorian Glass where a pattern number is stated and id is only given if there is a pattern number to support the pieces.

Thanks for confirming the definition of a 'mushroom posy'

Unfortunately I am not in a position to go 'digging round archives' at the drop of a hat.  My personal circumstances do not allow that to happen.  Frankly the arrangements necessary to get to the Birmingham Glass Fair once a year are enormous.  Earlier this year I was able to make arrangement to visit Broadfield House.  This entailed over a 5 hour journey and necessitated organising detailed after school arrangements for my youngest son who is disabled.  I had two and a half hours there and we managed to squeeze in a flying trip and a race around the Cone as well as take up a piece of glass for discussion with BH.  (The piece I am trying to identify myself hence starting this thread).  I had managed to find pattern number references that I wanted checked out and BH were very helpful in checking a particular pattern book for me whilst I looked around, but there was no way I would have had the time to go through all the references myself.

On your last comment I agree.  Research is not cheap and you are probably quite right that having a vast collection of known glass allows comparisons and enables the differences and similarities to emerge.  However I am not in a position to be able to afford to do that.  I have to sell some of my glass in order to be able to afford to buy more to research or add to my collection.  I don't often buy a 'known' piece unless it adds to my Carlo Moretti pencil neck collection ... Or is so rare or  beautiful (and affordable of course) that I have to have it   

For the first few years of collecting I used to buy all sorts of glass (I also spent decades collecting pottery and china as my aunt was a dealer so I grew up with that) just so I could hold it,weigh it,see the construction and research it to find out what it is.  Now my criteria for buying glass is only  (mostly) glass I absolutely  love and can live with, so that after I've researched it to find out what it is, if I can't sell it, it stays in my collection and doesn't end up in a box adding to the mounds of glass and ceramics/studio pottery that I am trying to get rid of having hoarded since my teens.

m

[nigel benson]

Dear m,

You are, of course quite right that the GMB exists to answers questions, however for me, when I'm confronted with so many within a group of entries, giving little time for replies in between, I just glaze over. All the questions created the necessity for a very long time consuming reply - hence my use of the word 'complex'. You know what your queries are all about, we on the other hand, are confronted with an array of them to pick out the ones we wish to, or can, answer. Sadly, without a photo of the one that you don't wish to put on the board - your perogative  - it also becomes a bit of difficult conversation.

Your comments about not being able to go and do research "...at the drop of a hat...", frankly apply to all of us, for one reason or another. My major committment is to try and earn a living, particularly in these very difficult financial times! Time, distance and the necessary accompanying costs apply to all of us. For instance, it's three and a  half hours (on a quick run) to go to BHGM for me, so a days travel including the return, and the better part of a tank of petrol.

As for being able to buy things that are known, it is not always a matter of large amounts of money, but knowledge that has been built up through the confidence created by buying, selling, discussing (as here on the GMB), having your own library/borrowing from the local library, and visiting museums that have glass collections (not only BHGM). The other way is to handle items at auction, something that cannot be done at museums. In fact confidence is very often the key come to think of it

There are always discrepancies between books and publications, the trick, if there is one, is to decide which are the consistantly reliable ones. Yes, books are expensive, but IMHO necessary for anyone with a deep interest in any subject.

Don't think that I'm assuming we can all buy glass and books to our heart's desire, in fact I always struggle to justify keeping an item or buy yet another book or sometimes even an archive, but without them there is no 'edge' for either the dealer or the collector. Books always pay for themselves. The first time you buy something (and save money) as a result of a book you've bought you are being paid back for the outlay.

The keeping of glass to learn from is something that a number of people do in order to understand a subject, including major collectors like Graham Cooley. It need not be vast numbers. It allows you to get a greater understanding of a subject, something that I learnt many years ago when there were no books on Powell/Whitefriars and the exhibitions weren't even a glint in the eye, I began buying the Arts & Crafts drinking glasses. Keeping and comparing the odd one to create a small collection allowed me to gain knowledge that few others had available at the time.

Personally, I think I'm driven by gaining the knowledge about something I know little about, finding the item is a buzz, but finding the information is just as much a buzz - hmmm, might be why I've never made a fortune out of the antiques business

Kind wishes, Nigel

 

[flying free]

That sounds like perfect advice to me 
Thanks Nigel.
m

[nigel benson]

Hello m,

I've had time to check my copy of Mervyn Guliver's Victorian Decorative Glass, Volume 4, Part three which covers the pattern books of Philip Pargeter and Stuart & Sons 1850 - 1914 .

I have compared the drawings with the two Harrods pages shown in the article by Lesley Jackson, in the Glass Association Journal Vol 5, called 'Powell Lookalikes'.

The top plate (18), on page 53, are mainly Stuart. The only reason that the two in the middle row (left and middle) cannot be confirmed is that they are not in Mervyn's line drawings. All of the other items have the same serial numbers as in the Stuart reference, except there is the addition of a 'CH' in front of the number in the Harrods catalogue page. The two unidentified pieces have similar serial numbers suggesting that they are also Stuart, but not confirmed.

The second plate (19) has the same pattern pieces as Stuart's Drop Head Dab Trail pieces, and similar serial numbers, but most are not shown on the two pages of drawings in Gulliver that I have. Three, however are, the two small ones in the top row and another small, one on the right in the middle row - same serial numbers, with the addition of 'CH' on the Harrods page. Again, it is possible that they are all indeed Stuart, particularly as the serial numbers are in the same number range as Stuarts with the same number of digits, but the others aren't shown.
 
Given that Mervyn splits the topics up within the volumes, the others could be illustrated elsewhere in another part of his work - or, he might not have got everything??

Anyway, I'm sure that will be of some assistance to you.

Nigel

PS. In order to make my copy pay for itself, that's £65.00 please!!!!!!!!   Oh well, it was worth a try

[flying free]

  You are a very very generous person - thank you so much!!
I have 4 other pages of trailed vases from the Harrods catalogue 1907.  They are different pages to those shown in JoftheGA vol5 1997 which are 1909 pages.
I will email you.
 I do not wish to overturn my apology for questioning Truitts 1880-1940 page 67 where vases 1,2,3,4 are identified as Harrach. I do also appreciate as you have said, that there is no reason why makers couldn't copy each others work and thereby produce items that are the same or very similar to each others. 

However , I feel the information you have so generously shared means I still have a query over vase 1 and vase 2 on that Truitt's page. 

Vase 2
Vase 2 shown In Truitt's as above,  is a flat rim mushroom posy  with 5 'peacock eye' prunt and trails that go under the bowl to what appears to be the pontil mark.  Unfortunately only the height is given (2.5") not the width which doesn't help with comparisons. 
There is one of these in drawing form on my Harrods Catalogue pages which 'appears' to be the same design - this one has 7 'peacock eye' prunts and trails - not possible to see whether they go under the bowl or if there is  a pontil mark.  And unfortunately these are measured in width not height with widths being given as 8",10" and 12".  Reference no CH14805
This appears to fit in with the Stuart serial numbers

Vase 1
Vase 1 shown in Truitt's as above, is a small posy vase with a bulbous base and a tall ish flared out rim.  It 'appears' very similar to the vase on plate 19 page 53 top row 4th from left which you have now identified as being in Gulliver's Stuart drawings - ref in the catalogue pages as CH18081(or 18083 difficult to read even with magnifier)

thank you once again for taking the time to look this information up for me.  It is very much appreciated
m

[nigel benson]

Currently, I'm afraid your email will bounce back! I'm working on the problem and I'll let you know by PM'ing.

In the meantime, I've considered the problem you've put in front of us all. Perhaps the best way to understand the whole peacock trailed subject is not to try and deal with all the manufacturers at once? Maybe get one manufacturer, say Stuart, sorted out so that you can then identify that subject and go on to working on the others? That is to say, get Stuart's characteristic features sorted out, so that there are known, and synonymous things that will generally indicate Stuart. That way other factories will become more evident.

Going from the known to the unknown is, in my experience, much easier.

Nigel

[flying free]

thank you Nigel.  I agree.
I am as  certain as I can be at the moment, that the vase I referred to that I'm investigating is not Stuart, and that the reference of it in that glass book and other articles, to those catalogue pages in The Glass Association Journal is incorrect. 
I believe, but cannot prove, that most if not all of those vases on the catalogue pages, are Stuart.
I believe, on what I have at the moment, that my particular vase  is a different manufacturer.
I will let you know if I find anything further 

I did send you a pm via the GMB but if it didn't get through to you do let me know.
As ever, I'm grateful and appreciate your advice and encylcopaedic knowledge and also the time you have taken to do this for me.
Many thanks
m

[Mike M]

Hi

I thought you might like to see this.  Whilst taking a picture of some glasses at Passau (on the shelf below) I realised I got a good shot of the underside of a shelf of peacock trail bohemian vases. Showing mostly polished pontil marks.

Unfortunately I was not really taking them so I don't have full information.  From their positioning I think Passau is saying they are definitely Bohemian, possibly Harrach but not definitely.

I do have permission to use this photograph.

Cheers

Mike

[flying free]

Thanks so much Mike.  Very interesting.  Definitely one in there that I would say is so similar to a Stuart vase I have with pattern no. It's quite difficult to tell on the others exactly what the peacock eye is like (apart from the one at the front). I love that amber and green with the star cut base....gorgeous. 
I shall have a compare later.  And thank you very much for your generosity in sharing your photos.  I really appreciate it 
m

[flying free]

I haven't time to go through these in minute detail at the moment, but on a cursory glance I believe there are such similarities between these and the Stuart vases (presumed from serial numbers and also the ones Nigel confirmed from the Stuart pattern books) that further investigation is required.  Along with contacting Harrach and The Passau Museum.  Mike, I don't know if I've read into what you said correctly, but were you intimating because of the cabinets they were in, that they weren't identified with a specific maker?   

Looking at your picture I see 7 vases with vase 1 from left and vase 7 from left only half in shot and which I cannot see properly.
There are distinct similarities between vases (from left) 2, 4 and 6 with what NIgel has confirmed as  Stuart vases and others which I believe are Stuart vases. 
In addition re: vase 5 (from left) the tall vase at the back with the bulbous body:
- this vase or one that looks to be the same, is shown in Truitts identified as Harrach. 
- There is a vase with the same bulbous body foot and merese as well as the trails but it has a different top (flared out with wavy rim and 5 peacock eye prunts) in my Harrods 1907 Catalogue page serial number CH 16995 (this is in Gullivers vol 4 as Nigel said above, as Stuart). 
-The top design of that vase in your photo vase 5, looks to be the same as the top on another vase  identified as Stuart by Nigel above, with serial number CH15637 (Harrods serial no) 15637 (Stuart serial number)

So, there are many similarities - which is why I have been confused by who did what I guess.
 m