Topic: is this a Monart colourway please? - ID = Monart

[Frank]

I do not think it is despite the similarities. can you mail me bigger pics

[flying free]

Sending now.  Thanks for looking.
Am also attaching here a picture of  a Monart posy vase I have that has a polished completely flat base with an finely ground unpolished oddly shaped pontil mark on it, for comparison.
m

[flying free]

Hi Frank,did the photos go through ok?
m

[Gary]

Hi flying free below is a link to my collection of Monart pieces with polished out pontils. Monart used this type of finish on all types of ware (ie applied feet, shaped feet and regular vase and bowls).
I have no great problem with the type of pontil finish or shape of your vase it is the colour scheme that I have my doubts.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/thumbnails.php?album=984
Gary

[chopin-liszt]

Whew! I was pretty sure the pontil mark was fine and that I've seen the double roundel on Monart before.

[nigel benson]

Hmm, but have you ever seen a double pontil surrounded by a completely flat polished area??

Only an observation 

Nigel

[Gary]

Below is a photo of Monart grinding shop where all Monart bases were finished off and an example of ZH ashtray with pontil ground out.
I would imagine there would be an array of sizes of grinding stones used depending on the size of base.
Gary

[chopin-liszt]

Do glassmakers use double pontils, Nigel?   

I know I've seen the double-rounded pontil mark, but I don't have current access to D&D's collection in London to check how the base was finished around the marks.

[Frank]

They tended to be a bit scruffier on applied foot pieces but not on footless vases. Colour is not a great problem as looking at big images the method is very Ysart... so what happened with the grinding? We can only speculate...

I doubt they changed grinding wheel frequently, if at all, it is one of the best fingerprints of Monart in that is was nearly always done with a wheel of the size shown. Contrast with smaller wheels used in virtually all the Monart-a-likes by other makers.

Bases would be ground to remove high spots prior to grinding then polishing the base flat probably on a different machine to that shown,the second grind could have been done later. There do appear to be blemishes in that area....

Some thoughts:

It was a second for some reason that may still show and used for training.

A fault was noticed while grinding and grinding stopped.
Got halfway through grinding when Paul announced he was off to Caithness Glass.

The piece would then have joined the others in the store room see Ian Turner's remarks in paragraph 5 here http://ysartglass.com/Ysart/YsartPuzzle1.htm according to which it is not Monart, just a working sample 

What happened to all of the pieces still in that store after Paul had moved on? No-one seems to know but as we know several have surfaced in collections they left it at some point and were circulated among collectors.

So my opinion:  made by Paul or apprentice, not finished, placed in storeroom at Moncrieff. Sold to a dealer later.

[flying free]

Digesting your comments Frank and thank you

Why do you say not finished?  is it the double pontil mark?  would that signify not finished?  It is just a double pontil mark but ground in the same way as my posy vase.  Were Monart ultra-stringent about base finishes? would a vase be abandoned because of a double ground pontil mark?

A second? for the same reason of the double pontil mark?  it has a fully polished base, did something go wrong in the grinding of the pontil mark, was the pontil mark too large so requiring double grinding? so it became a second? I can't see any other reason at all on it, for it to be a second. And if so, I would expect to have seen other vases in the decor surface over the years that were 'perfect' and so therefore let out the door.  And that doesn't seem to be the case.

So then, I propose I have a very rare and possibly unique vase made at Monart by Paul Ysart or an apprentice and possibly a piece that was an experimental piece or a trial for using aventurine in amber glass, maybe as a forerunner to this one
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/13983/lot/21/     ?

With regards Ian Turner's comments on those vases not being Monart, is that opinion based on the parameters that if they weren't an official production line or recorded line of shape/decor, then they can't be classed as Monart?
I hate to question authority, but I don't see how a vase made at Monart cannot be classed as Monart  regardless of whether it went into production or not 

Finally, thank you  so much for taking the time to look and respond.  I really value your and everyone's opinions.  I'm really happy with my vase and it's great to find out more about it and about Monart.
m