Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass

Monart ! WMF ? or something else

<< < (8/9) > >>

Lustrousstone:

--- Quote ---what's specifically strange about the pontils on these is that they are sort of *doubly* ground, with one lower convex recession inside another larger (wider) one, which WMF did not do
--- End quote ---
This piece of WMF has a double ground pontil mark
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=200
http://lustrousstone.co.uk/cpg/displayimage.php?pid=198

Gary:

--- Quote from: paulbowen on January 18, 2013, 10:41:15 PM ---  Additionally, the pontil mark is all wrong for Monart, as it is completely ground out and concave. 

--- End quote ---
Monart did use that type of finish on the base, I have 6 ZA bowls, 1 MF (with full Monart label) and a XG powder bowl, (shown below) which all have concave pontil finish.
Below are letters from an American Monart collector and B Reid the dispatch clerkess at Moncrieffs glassworks explaining why that type of finish was used.
These letters are part of the Perth museum Monart archives.
Gary

chopin-liszt:
Can we take it you've had your mitts on this actual piece, then Paul? (given you say it feels heavy and sounds right)

paulbowen:
Thank you, folks, for your replies and images.  I have had my mitts on 4 bowls like this over the years.  In further discussing the peculiar pontil mark on the bowl, let me use Gary's photo of the green Ysart ietm as a point of departure: on that piece, the first level of grinding, if I'm interpreting it correctly, is the flat part of the base, upon which the piece sits; the second level of grinding is then the concave grinding out of the actual mark left behind by the pontil rod when the piece was removed from the rod.  What I'm saying about the blue and red bowl in question, using the green Ysart piece as an anology, is that it then , by comparison, has 3 levels of grinding: one to make the bowl's base flat and level, to sit on; a second one, to concavely grind out the actual pontil rod mark created by the removal of the rod; and then a third concave grinding of the larger circular concave pontil mark, almost like a mini pontil mark within the larger pontil mark.  This inner mini second pontil mark is quite distinct from the outer one.  The end result is that the thickness of the glass between the top of the innermost grinding of the pontil and the bottom of the inside of the bowl is rather thin for a bowl of this mass.  Incidentally, the base of the bowl is not ground as perfectly flat as the Ysart piece shown; in other words, there is a ring of unground glass between the flat-ground edge of the base upon which is sits and the start of the double ground pontil.  This is why I referred to the pontil as double ground in my original description; I was not including the grinding of the base for flatness as a level of pontil grinding, as the pontil mark is seperate from the grinding of the edge of the base.  I believe both the Ysart piece and the WMF piece shown above have only edge or base grinding for flatness and then the actual pontil ground out, for a total of only two levels of grinding.  It is also interesting to note that on the blue / red bowl, the pontil area actually pushes up a little into the bottom of the bowl, making the bottom of the bowl, as viewed from the top (ie the inside) slightly convex.  I have never seen or heard of either an Ysart or WMF bowl having a situation like this.  One other interesting detail: the bowl, when viewed from side to side (as opposed to merely top-down or from bottom up) actually slants / slopes quite dramatically from left to right, ie it is not level, noticeably.  Although I once saw a Vasart vase that leaned a bit, it was minimal, and I have never, ever seen a WMF piece that was "off" in any way.   The last bit of info that I can provide is that the outside edge of the bowl is actually quite thin, almost fragile, really, something I've never seen in a WMF piece at all, and something which the Ysarts kept to a safe minimum in any piece of their glass I've ever encountered.  These are all the details and observations I have.  Thank you, everyone, for your continued interest.

flying free:
I can't comment on either makers finish as I have only a few pieces from each of them, but I have to agree I can't see a double ground pontil mark on either Gary's piece or Christine's.
I see a flat ground and polished base with a polished pontil mark on both of them.
m

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page