probably striations rather than wrythen, which is a spiral looking pattern created deliberately.
Christine is of course correct re comments about wear, but I've noticed that on pieces with large cut stars, the wear can be elusive to the eye. Sometimes it's necessary to look at the sharp ridges between the arms of the star - and since these can be quite fine, then 'seeing' the wear is less easy than had the object rested on a flat base etc.
Having looked at a lot of cut glass, I'm inclined to think there is a difference between old and new........old is sharper, usually, and the grinding marks (within the cuts) often remain more noticeable on older pieces.
Having looked through some books, this seems an elusive object, and writers (on table glass) you might have expected to have referred to them, seem not to......i.e. Barbara Morris - John Brooks - Felice Mehlman...........and those that do i.e. Manley and Millers seem only to refer to pressed examples. Manley calls it a 'fruit bowl - he shows the standard Davidson pressed version (which I have in yellow pearline) - Ivo says simply 'Nappy = bowl'.
Harold Newman (in his dictionary) says 'nappie - and gives the States as the instigator of the design and quotes B.&S. producing them in Lacy Glass.
The most unlikely one being the Chippendale handleless example in Andy McConnell's version of Miller's - quite interesting reading on page 113 - being most definitely a States example from the original 1917 catalogue. A satin-finished green bowl having a rim formed of large scallops - but definitely described as a 'nappy' (a rimless open dish).
So possibly just a vernacular name for a small bowl (which is what Ivo says

no way any cut examples though - sorry.
