Back on track, I've revisited all my Richardson's references.
I don’t have a match to the decoration. I don’t have a match to the foot. However my guts are telling me this is a Richardson vase.
1) There are two marked ('Richardson's Vitrified') Richardson's Etruscan vases in Miller's Glass (Mark West Consultant). Page 157
a) firstly I said earlier in the thread that I presumed one had ended up at the Corning as the shape I linked to (see link below) and the design appeared identical -
Correction, the shape and design (compared to the pictorial design on the left hand one in the book) are identical, however the one in the Corning has the geometric design and the pictorial design all in black on a frosted white opaline vase. The one in Mark West's book is on white opaline body, however the geometric borders are in black, but the actual pictorial design is in brown (his descriptive colour).
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/acid-etched-vaseb) Both the vases pictured in the book have the black and brown design, however whilst both have matching geometric borders that also match the one in the Corning, it seems the actual pictorial design is possibly different on both (still Etruscan but not the same design on both vases). It's possible one is the reverse of the other, but using the Corning example as a guide because the picture matches the vase on the left in the book, the reverse of that design (seen in the Corning link) is not the same as the second vase pictured in the book.
c) The two vases in the book look to be identical in shape to the one in the Corning... well almost, but not absolutely exactly (although on casual glance they definitely look so). Presumably this is because whilst mold blown, the vases have all been finished by hand and so that will account for any slight variations?
The two vases pictured in the book have been photographed, neatly, exactly in profile against a black background. It may be an optical illusion but as far as I can see they are very slightly different shapes to each other from the neck to the cup. The one on the right has a slightly longer neck and more of an angle at the base of the cup and looks to be very, very slightly taller because of this. Likewise neither are absolutely identical to the one in the Corning which appears to have a longer neck and slightly narrower cup. Again, I presume this can be accounted for by hand finishing?
The body shape and cupped rim of mine is a match shape wise and proportionately, to the left one in the book. But my foot is different to all of them.
From what I can see, it appears the foot could be applied on the ones in the book (not part of the same mould as the body), however I cannot tell for fact and therefore I do not know whether it is hollow as mine is (domed and open to a rimmed base) or whether it is flat and closed with a pontil mark.
I should note that on page 159 he shows a Richardson’s Vitrified mark on a white base of a foot and the foot is closed and has a polished pontil mark. I don’t know whether that is the base of the one of the white Etruscan vases on page 158 or not, though it could well be. In which case I suppose it is possible that the feet are molded as part of the body of the vase.
To explain the difference in the foot I can't see any reason why Richardson would not have used different feet for their designs, rather than replicating them all exactly, so I can't see that as being an obstacle.
After all, the Richardson opaline vases in Etruscan design from the same period, in the British Museum, have the same cupped neck but are different shapes again -http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3331858&partId=1&searchText=Richardson+vase&page=1
In summary, looking again at the pictures in the book (which is where I first got the wake-up call), my vase matches the shape and size proportionately and at the neck/cup etc, as the left hand one in the book. There is no question in my mind that my vase has come from the same mould as these vases (but mine has a different applied foot).
2) My vase is hand decorated and isn't transfer printed.
Mark West says in his book on page 159 under the heading Vitrified Colours:
'Another famous Richardson patent was known as "Vitrified Colours". Items made using this technique were displayed at the Great Exhibition. The process involved transfer printing and firing a black or coloured pattern onto the glass body (usually opaque).
Sometimes the enamels were hand-painted onto the body although this is less common .' (my underlining)
3) What about the colour of mine given all those I’ve found are white opaline (frosted or polished opaline)?
a) Returning to my post no44 above -
“And in the Official Catalogue of the Great Exhibition under Richardson it says
'...Opal, cornelian, chrysolite and Turkey glass ornamented in enamel colours...'
No idea what Turkey glass is though.”
From what I have managed to find, ‘Turkey’ was an old fashioned word for Turquoise, so it is possible this is what was meant by ‘Turkey glass’?
I wouldn’t however, say my vase was Turquoise. It’s an impossible colour to describe. The only thing I can tell for sure, is that under lighting photographed against a black background, it is a match on screen for a satin opaline French piece in a colour called ‘Bleu Drapeau’, which is a French opaline blue colour developed around the 1850’s according to Roland Dufrenne. I’ve no idea if in real life my vase looks the same colour as those pieces, but it certainly does when compared on screen. It’s not turquoise, not royal blue, not blue green, a sort of mix of them all. An Azure blue is the best I can come up with.
b( Charles Hajdamach in British Glass 1800 – 1914 page 106/107 repeats a description, from one of the Great Exhibition catalogues, of the Richardson’s glass display. In it there is much mention of ‘opal’ and ‘opal glass’ but unfortunately no definition of whether ‘opal’ means white, or whether it means opaline. However it does state ‘coloured’ and ‘frosted’ glass.
‘One of the many catalogues to the exhibition summarised their display: “Cut crystal glass; consisting of centre-dish …. A variety of articles in coloured, frosted, and painted glass. Opal vases, painted with enamel colours; subjects – Ulysses weeping at the song of Demodocus – Judgement of Paris – Diomed casting his spear at Mars – Dream of Penelope – Loch Oich – and from Aesop’s fables, the latter gilt; and various others.
Flower vases of gilt; ruby, black, and flint glass, cut and gilt; opal glass, painted – Pet Fawn – in enamel colours; opal glass, ornamented with enamel colours – Grecian figures.”
c( There are at least three examples of green opaline and yellow opaline produced by Richardson around this time so it’s clear they were producing coloured opalines.
- On page 104 of Charles Hajdamach’s book as above, there are two bottles, one yellow one green and they are dated to the 1840’s.
- It also states in the book ‘Before 1851 the firm used two marks … The other more common mark said ‘Richardson’s Vitrified’, often with the extra words ‘Enamel Colors’. The latter word usually spelled without the ‘u’’.
- And on page 447 the book says ‘The firm does not appear to have used a trademark in the second half of the nineteenth century’
- All of which should also put this green opaline vase – see link- in the pre 1851 time frame as it is marked Richardson’s Vitrified
http://www.portobelloglass.com/antique_glass_vases.htmlTherefore I think it is fair to presume that it is possible they made my Azure blue opaline around this time, as well as the yellow and greens we know about.