Topic: ID help with classical style vase please

[Paul S.]

think I've lost the plot

As mentioned, here is the stemmed bowl-shaped opalescent.......sucket glass/sweetmeat/comfit glass/desert dish/open sugar, or what you will.
Aside from the main part of the stem, the glass is remarkably stranslucent yet still shows the sunset glow strongly.          I've really no idea of origin or date, but would assume British made, and in view of the folded foot (maximum of 10mm in places) and snapped, sharp pontil scar with large cyst and high foot, would have imagined quite old (these features would normally be C18 - especially with the gold band.
Might a motto such as this be prompted by a particular type of contents??            Unfortunately, it's cracked, but still of great interest.
Anyone care to venture any thoughts on age or use??

Digging this out made me look at David & Middlemas** - the only book I have specifically on coloured glass, although there's very little in the book about opalescent material, and certainly nothing on C18 pieces.           
However, this book does provide the following two sentences.............

"Opaline, in spite of the warm vermilion colour which it reveals when held against a light, does not reflect, and it was best used like porcelain for its shape and the surface which it offered to the decorator.                A speciality of the Richardson factory was two-coloured opaline and occasionally parts of opaline jugs and vases are found with diamond or mitre cutting; but the most common form of working the surface was to roughen it to contrast with the polished surface of the painting or transfer prints on the body."

These comments seem to support the idea that opaline, with the vermilion effect, is simply another way of saying 'opalescent glass'.

Ref.    'Coloured Glass  -  Derek C. Davis & Keith Middlemas  -  Herbert Jenkins  1968.       pages 107 and 110.

[John Smith]

... Hi Paul.S.

This debate has surely raised plenty of questions, ideas and possibilities, all of which are more than just interesting.

I myself however, am still yet to be convinced that opalescent glass and oplaine glass are one the same.
I am not questioning YOU or any other who has replied to this post.
I am simply adding "my bit" as like the rest...

One thing for sure, is that MOST (but not all) opalescent glass will be refered to as such for items which have been press moulded... Lalique: Sabino: Verlys: Etling etc. etc.   These very factories named their very own pieces: OPALESCENT GLASS and not Opal-Anything-Else... save for Opalique, but that's another story...

"Opaline" on the other hand, is more often than not, smooth-surfaced and without moulded features etc. (in the main)...

I can think of no opalescent glass vase/bowl etc. by Lalique for example that has been called anything else but OPALESCENT or will display the same finish or the characteristics as glass that has been termed as OPALINE... Both are very different, in their finish and opalescent glass contains no traces of vermilion, as far as I am aware...

Opalescent OR opaline glass (though it may be of the same glass ingredient make-up) is in fact the same colour throughout, and it is through heat control and/or the various thicknesses of the patterns, that the opalescent quailites are controlled and produced and then seen... Same can be said perhaps for all heat-sensitive glass, of which opalescent glass is also a variety of...

There can surely be nothing to dispute that an opalescent bowl by Lalique (for example) is entirely different than an opaline piece, even if the chemical structure of the glass is identical. Both are different in appearance and feel, and so are also both different by name.

The above is my observation and in no way is a contradiction of what others may think or say...
ALL OPINIONS are healthy and should be welcomed, no matter what reference has previously been written, recorded or doccumented.

As for your piece, the gilded words upon the piece together with its shape and form for use "might be" its give-away... A communion cup/drinking vessel perhaps? But again this is only an opinion...

John

 




 

[flying free]

Paul that is beautiful, really beautiful! - I love it.

Addressing the comments to do with the opaline/opalescence issue and whether or not they are interchangeable terms -

'These comments seem to support the idea that opaline, with the vermilion effect, is simply another way of saying 'opalescent glass'.
'
your reference is from 1968

To that I would add:
- We also have a definition of opaline glass given at the actual time of making early opaline glass that included bone ash as the opacifier  and which describes semi-translucent glass with an opalescent effect ( 1834 - the Count's)

- We also have a recipe that described  how to make white glass ‘imitating the peculiar lustre of the semi-transparent opal’ on cooling and with the addition of bone ash as the opacifier.  i.e. it also describes glass with an opalescent effect (1832)

and we have a description from Sandra Davison of 17th century Venetian opaline glass as opalescent glass -
'Venetian opaline glass of the 17th century was made by using arsenic and calcined bones in the batch.  When heated, these materials struck an opalescent white colour.'

But I suspect that it was in the late 1830s when the make up of semi-translucent opaline glass changed -

In The History of Glass (pge 174) Klein/Ward say 'The manufacture of opalines began in about 1810'
I suspect that  it was an experiment with bone ash in the batch, that once cooled provided a semi translucent glass, which is what they were aiming for (previously apart from Milchglas and Lattimo the glass seems to have all been transparent glass, notwithstanding Sandra Davison's description of 17th century Venetian opaline glass, which may have anyway been outside the knowledge of how to make, of glassmakers in the early 19thcentury). 
I suspect it was a  happy coincidence that the result of their semi-translucent glass, because of the bone ash, was opalescence.

 Then Baccarat called their new semi-translucent glass 'Opalin', because it resembled the much loved opal stone,  kind of like a trade name.  Which meant that others couldn't ... so they called theirs 'opaline'. 

So at this point, in the early 19th century, blown glass made using a bone ash opacifier in the batch and then cooled, and named as opaline glass, might well have been interchangeable with being called opalescent glass

However... that is when things changed -  I don't know dates but will look them up in a mo, but at some point coloured glass became 'de rigueur' and the Bohemian's led the way.  The French made a visit to Bohemia to check out the competition and thereafter developed their coloured glass - Coloured opaline glass being a part of that development.  I suspect that the colour became more important than the opalescent effect as a seller.

By 1844 we have a dictionary definition of Opaline glass that makes no reference to opalescence but does include using oxide of tin or phosphate of lime in the batch, or bone ash:

'Opaline glass is of a semi-transparent opaline hue, used for various ornamental articles, chiefly for the boudoir.  The effect is produced by adding to the best glass a small quantity of oxide of tin or what is better, phosphate of lime, or well burnt bone ash.'

This kind of, in a way, makes it clear that semi translucent glass, (they call it opaline) can be made using tin oxide, but a better effect (i.e the opalescent effect) is achieved if you use 'well burnt bone ash'.
 I think it also demonstrates that the make up of semi-translucent (opaline- their description of) glass changed. 
And certainly the Clichy book demonstrates that point.  The glass moves very obviously from quite translucent glass with an opalescence to semi translucent glass with no glow - I think the pictures through the book demonstrate that.

But by then 'opaline' had become the definition for semi-translucent glass created by the inclusion of an opacifier in the batch and natural cooling to a semi translucent finish whether or not it had an opalescent effect.  i.e. it became the fact it was semi-translucent glass created by an opacifier in the mix and subsequent cooling, that became the defining factor for the word opaline glass, not that it also had to have an opalescent effect once cooled to be called opaline.


By the 20th century 1985, we have  a definition of opaline glass that does not make any mention at all of opalescence in any way or of what constituent is used as an opacifier  (Mehlman)
‘Opaline is a semi-opaque translucent glass, often of “milk and water” appearance or coloured, ...'
But
Admittedly, by contrast Newman's description does talk about the 'diffuse' ness of the glass, and only includes bone ash in his description of the opacifier. 

It's kind of as if Mehlman is acknowledging that the make up of opaline glass changed but it remained known as opaline glass, whereas Newman has stuck to what was originally invented as opaline glass, i.e. with an opalescent effect when cooled and using bone ash as the opacifier.

Although that's where my thoughts were at the beginning, or at least that the descriptions seemed to be the opposite way round to those we knew today,and I know you also mentioned early on that the two were synonyms, I'm still not sure we can say that opaline glass is simply another way of saying opalescent glass. 
For example -
is all opalescent glass semi-translucent and made with an opacifier in the batch and then cooled to give the semi-translucency and opalescence?  I don't think it is, as Davidson Pearline is transparent glass for example.

However, if one was being purist, and disagreed with my description of what original opaline glass was (i.e that the aim was to make a semi-translucent glass, rather than the aim was to make a semi-translucent glass that was opalescent)  does it mean that all semi-translucent or translucent glass made using an opacifier in the batch and cooled to semi-translucency/translucency but which does not show any opalescent effect, should not be called opaline glass?
 And if so, who's going to tell Baccarat and the authors of La Cristallerie de Clichy?

I conclude that opalescent and opaline are not interchangeable descriptions because
1)  I do not believe that in the first instance the French makers set out to make a semi-translucent glass that was opalescent. 
I do believe they set out to make a semi-translucent glass though, because prior to that (in the near past century) glass had been either opaque (milchglas or lattimo) or transparent, and they were trying to make progress and make something unique and different.
2) Not all opalescent glass is semi-translucent glass. 
3) Using the earliest pure description of opaline glass, the opalescence is achieved by the use of bone ash and the subsequent cooling of the glass.  Not all opalescent glass is achieved in that manner, some is achieved by reheating to obtain the opalescent effect.

The only thing one could say is that all opaline or semi translucent glass created using bone ash and/or arsenic (still to be worked out) in the batch and then cooled to display the semi-translucent effect with opalescence, could be described as opalescent glass.



With regards the Lalique discussion, I have no idea how Lalique glass is made.  Is it pressed or is it mould blown?  If it is made using bone ash in the mix and the cooling method to get the opalescence then I guess it could be classed as opaline glass
so
I suppose (but I could be wrong) -
if Lalique glass is created using the cooling method and an opacifier in the batch (i.e. not by reheating) then yes I do believe using the earliest descriptions of opaline glass, that could be called opaline glass.  It is a semi-translucent glass with an opalescent effect. 
It doesn't matter whether it is pressed or blown glass it's the make up in the batch and the process of cooling to semi-translucent glass with an opalescent effect that would make it opaline by the earliest definitions.  Opaline glass is not always 'smooth' glass, my Baccarat perfume bottle was opaline glass with a molded pattern.
If however someone told me Lalique opalescence was created using re heating then that's different.  It doesn't match the early descriptions of opaline glass which are that the opalescence is created using bone ash as an opacifier in the mix and then the effect of the glass cooling. 
Is it likely Lalique, Sabino etc made using bone ash in the batch?
If not, then that is a very valid point as to why opalescent and opaline can not be used as interchangeable terms. 

'Opalescent OR opaline glass (though it may be of the same glass ingredient make-up) is in fact the same colour throughout, and it is through heat control and/or the various thicknesses of the patterns, that the opalescent quailites are controlled and produced and then seen... Same can be said perhaps for all heat-sensitive glass, of which opalescent glass is also a variety of... '

When you mention '...opaline glass...it is through heat control and/or the various thicknesses of the patterns, that opalescent qualities are controlled and produced...' does your definition of heat control include glass becoming semi-translucent through the cooling method please or do you mean through re-heating to achieve the opalescence?
m

 

[John Smith]

OPALINE GLASS

https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1090&bih=614&q=opaline+glass&oq=opaline+glass&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l7.2671.7253.0.7803.13.12.0.1.1.0.101.749.11j1.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.S3dPKd5oXaw

OPALESCENT GLASS

https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1090&bih=614&q=opaline+glass&oq=opaline+glass&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l7.2671.7253.0.7803.13.12.0.1.1.0.101.749.11j1.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.S3dPKd5oXaw#hl=en&tbo=d&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=opalescent++glass&oq=opalescent++glass&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.58192.65024.0.68919.16.13.3.0.0.0.73.676.13.13.0...0.0...1c.1.cOMy8CJU0HE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.d2k&fp=89c9b56917ecdcd4&biw=1090&bih=614


Both are entirely different...
and both use/used/uses entirely different glass working procedures
to acheive their "very" different results...

As for Lalique (Rene)
His OPALESCENT glass recipe was as unique as say that of Sabino,
who used as much as 60% more arsenic in his glass.

R Lalique used the following percentages as folows for OPALESCENT GLASS...
he made no "Opaline" glass.. not once or not ever.

Sand 67
Potash 8.5
Quicklime 5
Soad ash 10
Sulphur (trioxide) 0.16
Phosphorus pentoxide 4
Cobalt (just a trace)
Fluorine 0.4
Arsenic (white) anything between 0.2 and 0.6
Manganise dioxide 0.04
Chlorine 0.1
Aluminium oxide 1.3


Plus... if we look at most glass that is termed as being "Opaline"
it does NOT share the same characteristics as the glass that we term as being "Opalescent"

Both are entirely different.  Please see the above links.
There is for example: PINK, GREEN, BLUE, and many other colour varieties of OPALINE glass...
 
These same colours will not be applied to OPALESCENT glass,
save for description purposes: Blue opalescent or say golden opalescent (for example)

Opalescent glass IS opalescent glass... Opaline is NOT opalescent glass...

Much OPALINE glass will also contain uranium and will glow under UV black light...
MOST OPALESCENT glass will not! 

The confusion seems to be be the word: "OPAL"
but that is all.

John

[flying free]

'Both are entirely different...
and both use/used/uses entirely different glass working procedures
to acheive their "very" different results...'

When answering the point about Lalique I referred back to the articles that had previously been linked to by Christine to show the descriptors of opalescent glass http://www.patternglass.com/KindOpal/kindOpalHearn.htm
http://www.glass.co.nz/opalesc.htm
‘There are three kinds of glass known as opalescent. One is blue-tinged, semi-opaque or clear glass with milky opalescence in the center. The colour is produced by the slow cooling of the molten glass in those parts that are thick causing some crystallization inside the glass. This contemporary opalescent glass was first produced in the 1920s and 30s by companies in France such as Lalique, Sabino and Jobling.'

Whilst acknowledging as I did earlier, that I did not know anything about the production of Lalique glass, it seemed to me from this description that the method of obtaining the colour in the glass was the same as that described in the early descriptions of opaline glass – i.e. by cooling and that the description of the glass was very similar to early( 1830’s) descriptions of opaline glass.


'The confusion seems to be be the word: "OPAL" but that is all.' 

That was not my confusion. 
I raised a question because the Count’s description of opaline glass (1832) appeared to be describing glass that is opalescent, and then a further description of opaline glass described a glass made with an opacifier in the batch so that when the piece is cooled it becomes semi-translucent and opalescent.  So the query was raised regarding
a)   whether or not what was currently ‘termed’ and described as opaline glass really was ( as most of it seemed not to be opalescent)
b)   had the makeup of opaline glass changed over time
c)    whether or not early accounts were in fact describing opalescent glass as we know it today, rather than opaline glass, but calling it opaline glass.
 
This then led to a discussion of the various descriptions of opaline glass which have been put forth over the last 180 years and whether the batch make-up/method of making opaline glass might have changed over time or had the descriptions themselves changed.


' Opalescent glass IS opalescent glass... Opaline is NOT opalescent glass...'

With regard to the second part of your comment, the Christie’s link I gave earlier shows two large opaline vases which are opalescent, and the link to the book La Cristallerie de Clichy shows early opaline glass that is also opalescent.

And as far as I can ascertain from this thread and the discussions that have been teased out over the thread, it is clear that the early descriptions of opaline glass were describing an opalescent glass.  This was opalescent glass produced many decades before Davidson, Fenton, Lalique, Sabino etc.


'Plus... if we look at most glass that is termed as being "Opaline"it does NOT share the same characteristics as the glass that we term as being "Opalescent" '

I think that is the issue here, that in the first instance I queried what the definition of opaline glass was because I wondered if what people ‘termed’ opaline really was defined as opaline glass, as the characteristics between the different pieces being ‘termed’ opaline were so diverse and also appeared to be so different from the 1834 definition of opaline given by the Count.


'Both are entirely different.  Please see the above links.'

The problem with giving links to google images is that what is displayed are just pieces that people have described in a certain way.  They are not referenced sources and not always what they are described to be.  An example being that when I clicked on opaline I found an image of a Lalique car mascot, which I clicked on to discover it was on Live Auctioneers described as Lalique opaline glass mascot.


'There is for example: PINK, GREEN, BLUE, and many other colour varieties of OPALINE glass.. These same colours will not be applied to OPALESCENT glass, save for description purposes: Blue opalescent or say golden opalescent (for example) '

I’m not sure I understand the point you are making.  Do you mean that the names for the colours of the glass would be different for translucent glass then for transparent glass please? 
 
- Davidson Pearline was opalescent glass.  That was produced in yellow and blue.
- Fenton produced white, blue, green and amethyst as well as canary (see link)
http://reviews.ebay.com/Fenton-apos-s-Rare-Vaseline-Opalescent-Glass-of-1905-1929?ugid=10000000004698827
-Northwood produced blue, white and cranberry opalescent



'Much OPALINE glass will also contain uranium and will glow under UV black light... '

I cannot comment on quantities  but I know a lot of opaline glass does not.   Looking at the Clichy book and the opaline glass from Mousa and Amiato Antique and also my own collection, although I know that cannot be a scientific method for working out whether much or not opaline glass contained uranium. 


'MOST OPALESCENT glass will not!' 

Again production numbers are a difficult thing to ascertain, but it seems to me that a few makers produced opalescent uranium glass I believe: e.g. Davidson, Walsh Walsh, Northwood and Fenton

m

[oldglassman]

HI
            Re your bowl , " Anyone care to venture any thoughts on age or use??"

 These are generally regarded as English and possibly from the North East,they are seen in a variety of colours,sugar bowl is the most frequently used description and they can be found with a variety of motto's , "be canny with The sugar " is commonly seen , they are thought to have been produced in the first half of the 19th century.

http://www.delomosne.co.uk/page36/page30/files/5.147.10%2010cm.html

Cheers ,
                 Peter.

[Paul S.]

thanks Peter             Just goes to show that the folded foot can be misleading at times.........we tend to think of this feature not appearing after about 1760/70, but I'm aware, from several authors, that it makes a re-appearance some time around the early part of the C19  -  although not quite sure of the reasons for its resurrection.          Always possible perhaps that it may have continued on those items where a strenthened foot rim was desirable, or maybe a more localized feature.

[flying free]

is it possible if Paul's pedestal bowl is believed to date to the early 19th century, that it is an example of 1830's opaline glass with an opalescent effect?
i.e. an example of exactly what the Count was describing in 1834 as opaline
and what the recipe of 1832 describes as - white glass 'imitating the peculiar lustre of the semi-transparent opal'?

m

[flying free]

Bonhams used the term opalescent to describe them and they do have an opalescent effect but I think they are the opaline glass as described.
Any opinions?
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/14080/lot/7/
m

[Paul S.]

I might suggest that Bonhams need to replace their glass expert.............to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in this pic that might be described as a finger bowl.           I've seen a lot of finger bowls - although sadly don't have one in genuine opalescent - but have to admit I've never seen/found one with a pedestal stem such as these.
Coming back to Peter's comments, these appear to be either open sugars or related perhaps to some form of sweetmeat dish  -  but they are attractive.