Author Topic: Date for Isle-of-Wight vase, please? (Read 7087 times)

David E · « **on:** March 28, 2006, 05:39:53 PM »

I'd be grateful if someone could advise on a date for this large Isle-of-Wight vase.

:shock: click to zoom :shock:

Two other shots:
Rim & Detail

Base & Pontil stamp

A superb design where the included bubbles merge with and divert the purple and blue trails. The vase is 10" (25cm) tall and 4-3/8" (11cm) diameter. Note the partial paper label in the final photo.

The information I have dates this prior to 1980, but I would be grateful for confirmation.[/url]

chopin-liszt · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2006, 05:56:19 PM »

:D:D

This pattern is called "pink and purple swirl" ( :shock::shock::shock:)
The flame pontil means it was pre-1982.
I believe this pattern came out after "Seaward", and around about the same time as "Aurene", probably sometime in the mid seventies.

David E · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2006, 06:01:10 PM »

Great, thanks Sue! Just replied to your e-mail as well!

I'm helping out this guy who's got an incredible amount of glass (thought my collecting habit was bad!) and I'm just helping out with identification.

chopin-liszt · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2006, 08:04:15 AM »

:D:D

I just got your email, David, it looks as if you and I both thought the same! There's an attenuated bottle, listed in Miller's guide '05, p314, with a broken pontil mark, dated at '73-'74. I shall have to track down the date for the start of the flame pontil mark.
Early stuff had broken pontil marks. They started experimenting with putting a blob of glass over the pontil, the first appropriate thing that came to hand to mark the blob was a coach-bolt with a round head, so there are some early "coach-bolt" pontil marks. I have a couple of these, on "Seaward" pieces. The flame pontil would suggest your date of '75 was pretty accurate, David - I was being more cautious!

Bernard C · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2006, 09:43:36 AM »

Sue & David â€” this is very useful information, new to me. I have a mystery piece that looks right, but could not be IoW because it has a simple broken-off pontil. It needs reappraising.

Thanks, Bernard C.

Lustrousstone · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2006, 12:05:03 PM »

Bernard, as I read it, Sue says the very early stuff did have broken pontils

Bernard C · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2006, 12:21:00 PM »

Christine â€” Apologies, I had not made myself clear. I had formerly not considered IoW a possibility because it had a broken pontil mark. With this new information I will reappraise it.

Bernard C.

chopin-liszt · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2006, 09:34:29 AM »

:D:D

Any chance of a piccie, Bernard? Pretty, pretty please?

David E · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2006, 04:58:41 PM »

BUMP - a photo would be handy, Bernard!

Bernard C · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2006, 05:43:00 PM »

Sorry, folks, I haven't found it yet.

You will be the first to know when I do.

Thanks for the reminder, Bernard C.