Topic: Early Harris or later Dobson 'cut ice fish or lollipop?

[chriscooper]

Over 9" tall weighs 2.5kg quite narrow along the sides just over an inch wide.
Flat on the back cut ice on the front but not polished flat large dimpled swirls showing. Nothing on the base.
Crizzle and lots of large bubbles some amethyst showing, the casing as a green tinge to the glass.
Had suggestions from a cut ice lollipop to a later Dobson piece, though to be fair they have now conceded it is early.
My thoughts a cut ice fish? Michael Harris around 1970 similar to the one on page 33 of the Mark Hill book?

[chopin-liszt]

It's certainly a "Cut-Ice Lollipop" - just an uncut one. It is not at all unsual for "Cut-Ice lollipops" to be uncut.
It is not a Fish. 

Fish vases have the applied wings to the sides;

Lollipops are flat, roundish pieces.

The Cut-Ice Lollipops are a Harris design, not Dobson's.

I don't understand why somebody would have mentioned Dobson to you. 
Dobson was the business manager, although he had a great input as a designer as well, and also marked "Mdina" on the base of pieces, he did not make glass himself.

Your piece might be from the early (Harris) days, but it would be absolutely impossible to tell for sure.

I think some of these lollipops didn't get the final cutting because of the time and staff constraints and it was deemed more important to get stuff on the shop shelves to keep up with demand than to bother with finishing everything "properly".

Looking at the piece you have, I would personally suspect it was made by Said.
The internal "workings" of the glass are not as "tight" as are Harris pieces, it doesn't seem to have too many lovely bubbles either - and the overall shape doesn't look right to me - but I could be wrong.

I've attached an image of a signed Harris one.

[chriscooper]

Do you then agree then Mark Hill's description A 'Cut ice' fish vase with polished facets circa 1970 is at best misleading or just completely  wrong? (page 33)
A very similar vase to this and which I have based my information on.

Chris

[chopin-liszt]

The book is plain wrong I'm afraid.
Mark is aware of this and it would have been corrected in the second edition - but that has been put on hold indefinintely because of the closure of IoWSG.
These lollipops were made well into the late '70s. I've seen them signed (by Said) and dated up to circa '79.

Again, we're in a situation of 2-D images not being able to depict 3-D sculptures at all well.

[glassobsessed]

Lovely Lollipop Chris, I would suspect it was made in 72 or before but without handling to asses the subtleties it can be hard to tell. Usually, later lollies are fatter but as per usuall there will be exceptions.

John

[chopin-liszt]

The fatness can depend on the height too. I have always tended to think the taller ones are later - perhaps just because my signed one is smaller. The pic of mine doesn't show how different the internal appearance is to my other ones - one of which is signed by Said, '74. I have just assumed that only my MH signed one is actually by him.

[glassobsessed]

This one, which is a half inch shorter than Chris's, is signed by MH: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/EarlyMdinaGlass#5429986536823925058

This one was taller but much fatter, dated 76 I think: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/LaterMdinaGlass#5803176948307163506

Really tricky dating these without one or other of the signatures used being present. Who is likely to have been making them circa 1972 at Mdina - Harris, Said, Boffo perhaps?

John

Thickness may depend to a degree on how much is ground away for the facets too...

[chopin-liszt]

I don't think I've seen a pre-'73 signed Said anything. Or did somebody post somthing once, dated '72? A seahorsey thing?
I know Said had a really good innate skill for glassmaking, which developed rapidly, but I really don't know if he was able to make such things as early on as '72.

Looking at your signed MH one, John, it's not nearly as "tight" as mine - so perhaps that's not a reliable way of telling either.
This is my Said signed '74 one.

[flying free]

It was me that posted the 73 seahorse.  Looking at them from an outside point of view lol, as someone who has little knowledge of this glass, my observation is that the bubbles in the two known MH ones seem to appear to be much larger than the Said signed one or Chris's one.
That said, they are all absolutely glorious 
m

[Nemmie]

Someone pointed out that elsewhere that the earlier ones are not narrow waisted at the bottom.

Which your pictures seem to prove as your 74 one is but the others aren't and Mr Coopers does so if this is a method then his is later.