Topic: ID help with classical style vase please

[flying free]

oops I meant Bulle de Savon not Boule de Savon
ok, I've been rereading the Count's description and the whole article to put his use of the opaline glass analogy into context.  Paul, I've been musing on your post as well.
Something occurred to me.  Was opalescent glass around in 1834 and commonly known, when the Count made his definitive statement on opaline glass?
I've been back to 'The History of Glass', Klein and Lloyd for a read.
page 175
'...However, the coloured opaline glass for which Franch is best known was an independent development.  Opaline was a translucent milky-white glass which, by the addition of various metallic oxides, could be coloured pink, mauve, turquoise, green or several other delicate shades.  The manufacture of opalines began in about 1810, the earliest examples being classical in shape and generally undecorated except for the addition of ormolu mounts.  In the 1830s, under the Bohemian influence, polygonal shapes and stronger colours were introduced and at the same time white opalines began to be painted...., in imitation of porcelain.'

It goes on to say that there was a first public exhibition of Russian manufacturers in ST Petersburg in 1828-1829 and talks amonst other colours etc, that there was a 'rosy opalescent glass' that was perhaps inspired by the French opalines'.

This is the first reference I can find to 'opalescent' and the way it is written I don't believe it implies the French opalines were in fact opalescent glass.  Just that they inspired this piece.  He does not show an example of it, so I'm unsure as to exactly how opalescent it was in look (our thoughts of what opalescent looks like).  He goes on to discuss the opalines produced in Britian and the French opalines but there is no mention of opalescent (as we know it) glass and his pictures are all of opaline (as we know it) glass.

I also think his description of the opaline at the time as a 'translucent milky white glass' is very similar to the jug I showed from the Clichy link earlier. 
I think this is what the Count was describing and I think it was opaline glass.  I am unsure as to when 'opalescent' glass came into being (apart from the mention of the rosy opalescent Russian glass descriptor above).  Perhaps in order to query the Count's description and my interpretation of it, we need to discover whether opalescent glass (as we know it, i.e. reheated to produce the opalescent effect) was around in the 1830s?
m

[flying free]

and here is a good picture of early Charles X white opaline glass that demonstrates the 'opal' like properties as you can in fact see the different colours refracting in the glass but is definitely not what I would call opalescent as we know it.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/a-charles-x-ormolu-mounted-opaline-1715724-details.aspx?intObjectID=1715724

I feel sure this is what the Count was describing when taken in context with the rest of his article.
m

[Lustrousstone]

That would give the fiery glow when held to the light and is opalescent as I understand it and definitely what the count described.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opalescence

[flying free]

okay, so two questions
1) ..has it been reheated to achieve the opalescence?

2)  is it  opaline glass?



and has opaline glass changed in physical presentation over time then as none of the coloured pieces in La Cristallerie de Clichy demonstrate those properties of opalescence apart from the first ones in gorge de pigeon, and they still call them all opaline glass.

m

[Lustrousstone]

1. Yes, I would say so. Arsenic was used to make colourless glass, the opalescent effect was probably a serendipitous discovery
2. Yes according to the count
3. Probably, back to my marketing theory. Bone ash would have been much cheaper than arsenic. (PS none of my white bits are opalescent).

[flying free]

none of my early white pieces are either but I have one and that was made thirty years ago by Neil Wilkin - looks completely plain milky white opaline (as we would know it, but it is quite thinnish and quite fine glass) in normal daylight but hold it up to the sun and the whole thing glows madly oranges and reds etc.  I have a thick purple opaline vase that does that as well, although obviously not the whole thing glows, and I have a uranium green opaline lustre mid 19th that also glows orange when held up to the light.
None are opalescent glass as I know it.
 
But if we would call those Christie's vases opalescent glass, why do Klein and Lloyd not refer to this early glass as opalescent at all.  They refer to them as opalines and do not mention opalescence even in conjunction with saying the Russians produced a 'rosy opalescent' piece.
m

[flying free]

this is a Christy tazza that the British museum call opaline - produced 1840
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=32708&partid=1&searchText=opaline+glass&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1
quote from their website
'Very little is known about the glassworks of J.F. Christy at Lambeth. Surviving examples attributable to his firm all date from the late 1840s, when he was producing painted opaline glass in the manner of Richardson's of Stourbridge, who were the leading producers of painted glass at this time. Like Richardson's, he produced ornamental wares inspired by Greek vases and by contemporary French opaline glass.'

this is a Gray-stan vase they describe as having opalescent stripes
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_image.aspx?objectId=84116&partId=1&searchText=opalescent+glass&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&numPages=10&currentPage=2&asset_id=391181

m

[Lustrousstone]

The Christy tazza isn't opalescent but the Graystan vase is. I've lost where we're going with this...

[Paul S.]

well, since those vey nice people in charge didn't follow my request, I will continue wallowing through the treacle.

In an effort to rationalize the meanings of words, I've been trying to separate trade names from purely technical descriptive terminology...................partly because in my opinion this is the area that is causing major problems, and partly because I dare say there aren't many people here who are conversant with all of the C19 factory trade names (English, French and States) and who can visualize, at the drop of a hat, exactly what these names look like.

What in essence what we are trying to do is define the make up of Opaline and Opalescent (if indeed they are truly speparate types of glass)...............forget the minor issues i.e. product such as Sowerby's 'Blance de Lait' - opal vitro-porcelain - Royal Worcester Porcelain - Queens Patent Ivory Ware etc.
You only have to recall the endless pages of posts by Loustrousstone and myself some 12 - 18 months ago, to understand how misleading and confusing trade names can be -- I think the debate concerned the Sowerby products of Blanc-de-Lait and Opal Vitro Porcelain.

the Count was using the word 'opaline' - but was technically describing 'opalescent', for the reason that he goes on to mention the sunset glow.
For some reason he didn't say 'opalescent'..........I don't know why, but he didn't, and instead chose the word opaline because maybe it sounded better - he liked the sound - he was corrupting the original French descriptive word 'opalin' - any one of a dozen reasons that we shall now never know.
My opinion is that..........because he used the word opaline whilst describing an opalescent glass, he misled not only future readers of his paper but other workers who maybe followed his example when discussing opalescent glass.

I did comment earlier today that I couldn't see anywhere that the Count had stated that his 'opaline' had been re-heated to produce the pale milky blue colour - and I assumed therefore (dodgy) that re-heating had not been carried out  -  and assumed that the colour and sunset effects were a natural by product of a metal that had calcined bones (phosphates) as part of their constituent make up.
Is Christine now saying that my assumption is wrong, and that reheating is essential to produce the sunset glow - I really don't know, so am relying on Christine's technical knowledge which is dountless light years ahead of mine.

As I've said, I see the real problem here as one of terminology  -  we are confusing ourselves by mixing trade descriptions with purely technical words which describe what we see rather that what a factory owner thought might sound attractive to the punters.
Certainly if you read the full description of the Count's 'opaline' and compare with what we know is technically opalescent, then the two are virtually identical.

P.S.  No, I wasn't offended m, just   *+$*+" off.........I've been in the V. & A. today, so couldn't reply earlier

[Lustrousstone]

Small problem Paul; the Count was French, so somebody translated him for publication in the American journal