Topic: Indecipherable signature on trailed vase (confrmed as NOT William Walker)

[LarryB]

Wm. Walker has followed up with the suggestion "Amanda Walker, March 1992". I feel we're tantalisingly close to an I.D., and that the clue lies in the cluster of tall consonants in the second word, which may be a couplet with "L", "K", or "D". As a last throw of the dice, I attach a clearer pic of the signature, which might just inspire recognition. Larry.

[flying free]

ok, now I see Amanda Walker Nov 1997
But I hadn't been able to find an Amanda Walker (I checked previously).
Good luck
Please come back if you find something won't you?
m

[aa]

Deciphering signatures is always a conundrum. It is amazing how many people can see Tiffany or Lalique in an artist's scrawl and as someone who has often received the compliment that I must have been a doctor in a previous life.... ;-))

But if I had seen this thread earlier, and as someone who has previously identified William Walker's work on this board, I could have told you emphatically that not only was this not his signature, but also by 1992/7 not likely to be an early experimental piece of his.

I can see Amanda in the first word, also Malcolm, also Martin. In the second, I don't really see Walker. I can see Motherson, Henderson, or something similar. I am almost 100% certain that the date is not 1997 but 1992 but I don't see March.

Anyway, I think it is very likely to be a student piece. And if beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the owner finds it beautiful, who am I to argue.

On the assumption that it is a student piece, and the type of engraving suggests it is, either the maker is now very established today or alternatively did not manage to survive as a glassmaker. If the former, it is a valuable early piece, if the latter, clearly very rare!

Although my comments are may be a little (sauvignon?) flippant, what I am really trying to say is that research has to be from first principles. Even if it looked like William Walker 1992, you have to ask yourselves: "is it likely?". The reply should have been "No way"!

[chopin-liszt]

I do understand exactly what you are saying, Adam...

but is this immediately recognisable as being Pauline Solven's work?
I did fall for it the second I laid my eyes on it, but I did not have a clue what it was.

The legible signature and RCA '67 I found written on the base helped a lot.

[aa]

I do understand exactly what you are saying, Adam...

but is this immediately recognisable as being Pauline Solven's work?
I did fall for it the second I laid my eyes on it, but I did not have a clue what it was.

The legible signature and RCA '67 I found written on the base helped a lot.

What I see is a well-crafted early piece, using silver chloride, therefore probably sixties, but the giveaway is a well thought-out, well fashioned two-toned melted in prunt that hasn't distorted the shape too much on expansion, therefore well controlled. So I'd be thinking of a quality maker, before I turned it upside down to see the signature. If I then saw Pauline Solven RCA '67 I would be satisfied that it would be likely to be her work, even though I hadn't seen identical work. I would also link the prunt, which looks like an eye, to the fact that I know of her fascination with eyes, lenses and the way in which the eye sees.

There are student pieces and student pieces!

[chopin-liszt]

 
It is rather a special beast. 
They're not prunts, by-the-way, they are "double-bubbles" inside the wall of the vessel.

But when I saw it, I also noticed the use of silver chloride, and while things go a bit wonky, with trails that shouldn't really be there and the shape being a bit distorted, I also thought the "yin-yang" shapes in the bubbles were well worked, so stuff how the rest of it had be, to accommodate them.
So I reckoned a student piece, an early bit by somebody who went on to be something a bit special.

 

[aa]

They're not prunts, by-the-way, they are "double-bubbles" inside the wall of the vessel.

Even better!

 As someone who played a small part in helping to market both Pauline Solven's and William Walker's work, among others, it is good to know that they both have had such full glassmaking careers, at a time when glassmakers are becoming a dying breed and our skills are vanishing

[flying free]

Lovely piece Sue
m

[aa]

'Even if it looked like William Walker 1992, you have to ask yourselves: "is it likely?". The reply should have been "No way"!'

Sorry Adam but I don't understand this comment from my own perspective. 
I think for me personally, it's not possible that I know or remember all the work of particular makers that I've seen.   Also I'm not a glass maker, so I really wouldn't have a clue if something would be considered  an accomplished piece or not. I saw it and liked the shape (not the splotches as that's not my cup of tea admittedly) and tried to help with the signature.  I was not aware this was not the type of work William Walker had been doing at that point.  I was just trying to help 
m

Flying Free  - Apologies if my comments appeared to be a criticism, this was not intended.

My knowledge base of signatures and glass identification comes from a life-time of collecting, selling,marketing and promoting mainly, but not exclusively,  contemporary British glass, research, museum visits, studio visits and very little from the fact that I am also a glass maker. I also know more than the average about early English porcelain and other aspects of the decorative arts. But I’m not always correct!

My point was really about research from first principles. I think that the basic principles of research that apply to many disciplines can be applied to glass and other media.  Interestingly, there was a programme on TV last night with Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould researching whether a so-called painting by Chagall was genuine or not.

What I was trying to say was that even if the signature had been clearly written and legible as William Walker,  that this, per se, is not enough to establish that it is genuine. One would need to research whether a piece of this kind is likely to have come from William Walker’s hand at or around this date. 

A quick search on William Walker Glass brings up this page, http://iowstudioglass.wikidot.com/azurene which indicates that WW was an active designer in 1978  also this page http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3354612/Artful-acts-of-creation.html where it states that WW is “Now 56, he tried one or two other jobs before discovering his craft at 24 and the article is dated 2006.

A bit of simple maths suggests in 1978 he was 28 and that he is now 64. Also that in 1992 he was 42 and assuming a continuous career had been working in glass for 18 years.

So in doing the research the next question is whether the piece looks like the work of someone who has been established for 18 years, bearing in mind that we are dealing with a craftsman who blew the glass for the restoration of Windsor Castle.

A further look down the google list brings one to this board http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php?topic=47688.0 and a rather nice image of an eighties vase by William Walker, which looks very refined by comparison. This would make me wonder whether it was likely that an glass artist would move from this very refined form to the rather cruder, naïve form in six or seven years. There I would probably be making a valued judgment based on my experience of other media, and still with the room for error, would say no.

Hope this clarifies things.

[flying free]

Hi Adam

You are quite right.  My mistake.
Hence I deleted my message
 I had said that I wasn't sure if that was his type of work when I first replied (to be fair to myself),  but I stand by my deleted comment,  that as a layman it is sometimes difficult to decide whether or not something is an accomplished piece of work or not.  Fortunately I did get it right on this one 
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,52873.msg300282.html#msg300282


m