Topic: 1880 Glass Vase Turquoise With Enamel Maker Unknown

[MissPrints]

I would adore your opinions on three questions: 


(1) English or Bohemian glass?

(2)  Could it be all-over enamel? Enamel over opaque glass?

(3) I'll arbitrarily assign a value of $10.00 to my vase when I delivered it to an auction house.
Question: what discount would you employ today, given its present condition? Be brutal--there's plenty of glass around and many of you own it. I'm realistic:  50%???

Description:


Height: 15 1/2''  (38.5 cm)

Diameter:  top: 7''   (17.78 cm)

Black glass base: 5 1 /2  square  (13.97 cm) incised with gilt; beveled edges and corners.

Vase is secured by a metal washer + nut and screw. 


Enameled floral appointments ~  Daisy, Eglantine English or Cherokee rose  + orange/ white periwinkle with a trailing strand of multicolored morning glory and a strand of Lily of the Valley with each twinning up the vase, front and back.

Gilt appointments(minor wear to gilt at base ring and top run, shown)~ no other issues—until sometime in the last three months. 

Date: 1880-90s (1885-90 photo, here with me).

This story does not have a happy ending.

Thursday I retrieved the vase from the auction house. We could not agree on a price so I pulled it.   I delivered the vase with no chips or losses, save the minor rubs to the gilt.  Thursday was the first time I viewed the vase after a 3 month absence. The vase has been with me for four decades so I know it well.  Thursday had its own additional problems--the Alabaster Disaster, primary among them. (more below on that).


This morning, I unpacked Miss Turquoise vase and discovered the damage whose ''hits'' are scattered over one-third of the top portion of the vase.  Of course!  those glaring ''hits'' would cover the front of the vase (the front is determined by the design of the flower garland on the base.  )

Blue enamel(if that's what it is) losses also seen  in one area on the backside of the interior—perhaps they applied and removed a label? If not--then why the loss?

Please compare my vase to this pair, which was found two months ago online: described as Bohemian.
PLEASE Note: I was NOT dealing with Heritage.

This pair is strikingly similar: 
 
http://fineart.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=5101&lotNo=86135

A PAIR OF BOHEMIAN GLASS COVERED VASES
Circa 1880 17-1/4 inches high (43.8 cm)
The blue opaque glass enameled with robin decoration and gilt beaded border supported by a rectangular black base with gilt decoration.

* * *


This vase was one of five items I retrieved Thursday. One  item-- a lovely 1880s white alabaster disaster(now) statue(20'') of a young woman. 

A return was attempted—I refused the return—due to condition:
the socle--broken off the plinth(they lost the socle )
her left thumb was broken off and missing
gouges to her right hand and arm
multiple ''stab wounds'': gashes and chips, front and back
smashed/chipped broken roses
~~and as a  finishing flourish--an unknown black substance smeared in several locations.
They trashed her. 

That fiasco—we'll skip over the chips to the Severes tea service--established that they do not employ ordinary care(in the legal sense) when man-handling a consignor's goods. Instead, they play a numbers game and hire people who are ill-paid and who have no idea how to safely handle items.  The House doesn't give a Rap--until their insurance surcharge, which I paid @ 1 1/2%, comes into play. I can take a joke but you'd better kiss me first. 

Miss Turquoise vase will not be surrendered as an insured loss. The statue was at a significant loss.

Originally, I had planned to list the vase but am now uncertain. Do I shelve it and live with damage? I suspect there is some gnashing of teeth in my future should that be the case, coupled with the purchase of a night guard which will mightily please my dentist.   

Past that,  I am sad. To my eyes the damages are significant and I cannot see myself writing a listing which reads, ''Please overlook the newly acquired pattern of scattered losses. Instead,  you and I will pretend that they occurred over time and, thereby, we will be pace setters and redefine the concept of normal wear and tear. After all, the vase was real old anyway...'' BAH!
 
Help!

Sign me,

It's Always Something

       Marney






 

[Lustrousstone]

I would say Bohemian with a possibility of French. I would generally expect such things to be blue milk glass through and through. Blue milk glass is common and any colour flashing is only be on one side. It looks like it might be crizzling rather than accidental damage. Examine the glass with a lens and look for fine crackling, as in glaze on pottery.

Are you sure the base is glass? Stone seems more likely.

[MissPrints]

Thank you, Christine, for your swift response.

>>I would say Bohemian with a possibility of French.
I would generally expect such things to be blue milk glass through and through.

Since I can now see a lighter blue glass from either side of the vase--due to the losses-- I believe it is blue milk glass.

>>Blue milk glass is common and any colour flashing is only on one side.

In this vase's case --to these untrained eyes--the blue milk glass was ''coated/frosted like a cake?''
That is flashing? Flashing=a process which produces an inexpensive rendition of ''true'' colored glass? In other words, this vase was tarted up/coated with something to imitate turquoise ground glass--yes?


>> It looks like it might be crizzling rather than accidental damage. Examine the glass with a lens and look for fine crackling, as in glaze on pottery.

I've attached a better photo taken in the morning sunlight: as you described, the vase is Crizzled to beat the band. Crizzling is a phenomenon with which I was unfamiliar. The vase has all the symptoms of the Advanced(oh, Goody!) stage: patches/crackled finish/haze.

I do find it odd that such a change could occur in three months.  The main part of the vase and its base are crizzle-free--at least as of this writing!(I have to find a bit of humor in all of this). It's the top surround which is compromised and crizzling right along as I type this.

I read online(Corning Museum and the V & A) about the why of crizzling and the chemical reaction which causes it.

>>Are you sure the base is glass? Stone seems more likely.

The vase and the base are the same temperature--if the base were stone I'd anticipate that it would be noticeably colder than the glass of the vase. The only stone I can think of--and I don't believe the base is comprised of it--would be jet/obsidian.  I have seen obsidian in Indian jewelry pieces(not a match) and Jet in mourning jewelry(some pieces here)--not a match. I believe the base is glass. The base is a uniform black: if it were stone,  I believe it would show the cutter's marks along the bottom. The base shows no trace of being buffed(if stone) smooth.


Henceforth, I will enjoy the vase while there's still time on my side --instead of that day, coming, when my sideboard is littered with colored turquoise flecks and enamel flowers.

I thank you for your knowledge and for your time. 

BEST!

Marney

[Ivo]

that is paint not enamel - not even cold enamel. The border is pretty crudely done as well - I do not think it can be salvaged.

[Lustrousstone]

The last picture supports what Ivo said. How odd

[MissPrints]

Hello, All~

Paint=Now, I am forced to agree.
The top part must have been damaged at some point long ago
and ''restored''(I use that term loosely) ?


The long portion/throat/stem and the circular bottom base SEEM to be fine~
until the disease affects them(I simply cannot wait for tomorrow!to see what comes next.)
I'll put it HIGH up on a shelf and await further developments.

What a surprise! ~ and not a good one.

Thank you~

Marney

[MissPrints]

Self-portrait with party hat(my dunce cap is at the dry cleaners)


The appropriate end to THIS thread.

M