Topic: From Frankenstein's laboratory - floriform "vase" with shroom & fruit & leaves

[rocco]

Hilarious piece, had to come home with me (despite some damage).
Sort of a forest scene (toadstool, twigs, leaves and a raspberry), with a cranberry coloured "pouch"-shaped vessel sitting in the centre.

Quite big and heavy at a height of 25 cm, polished pontil mark to the base.

Any help with when, where and who highly appreciated!
Stylewise I would think "Victorian era", but I may be completely off

Michael

[flying free]

It's absolutely delightful, particularly because of it's size.
The flower looks like some form of Venus flytrap type thing with the rim being hand crimped 

I've absolutely no idea, but the first thing that sprung to mind with the colour combination and that pink was my Stevens and Williams Mat-Su-Noke vase.
Looking up Mat-Su-Noke brings up all sorts of pieces, some of which are and some of which definitely are not S&W Mat-Su-Noke
(matsunoke or  mat-su-no-ke)
I'll try and find a link to my vase which I think I put on here.
m

[flying free]

http://gorgeousglass.org.uk/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH1039/
This one shows quite a chunky base
this one is mine
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,52700.msg299169.html#msg299169

[flying free]

Have checked through Gulliver's Victorian Decorative Glass and couldn't see a match unfortunately.
Walsh Walsh did make sculptural style pieces in this type of vein but I really don't know if they did this pink and there is no match in the book above for them either (but haven't time to check the Walsh book).

I think my vase dates to about 1884 but there are others in a similarish sculptural style to yours in the book above, that seem to date to c. 1888, 1889 ish.

m

[rocco]

Thank you SO much for your research, m!

My "vase" is certainly very similar in colour and style to the Mat-Su-No-ke pieces; but having read this interesting article >> http://theantiquarian.us/Ma-Su-No-Ke Info.htm it seems that this term only applies to pieces by Stevens and Williams with a specific decor like your vase.
(Might still be Stevens and Williams )

So you would agree that it probably dates to the late 1800s? (Judging from the cranberry colour and the over-the-top decoration).
As far as I have seen fruit and leaf decors have been made almost anywhere at that time, most seem to be attributed to Victorian English makers, though.

BTW, here is one of the few pieces I found online which in some respects reminds me of my vase: HOBBS, BROCKUNIER AND COMPANY (Wheeling, West Virginia) MATSU-NO-KE SATIN GLASS ROSE BOWL (you have to scroll to the bottom of the page).
So American could be another option, and I guess Bohemian as well...

Michael

[flying free]

Hi Rocco

I don't know enough about Stevens and Williams (very little indeed) or about Mat-su-no-ke to comment on the authority in the article.
 
I note that it says, that without the engraved number on the bottom the vases are not Mat-su-no-ke.  My vases do not have the number engraved on the bottom of them, therefore I might need to revisit my thread and ask some questions and do a correction for now until those questions can be clarified.

However I also note a couple of things  in that article that appear to be errors though:

1) Early in the article it says (my underlining)
'The Mat-Su-No-Ke design pattern was registered on October 18, 1884 by Stevens and Williams under the English RD #15353.'

Later on it says
'As per John Scherz, a fellow researcher and glass aficionado, Stevens and Williams only produced Mat-Su-No-Ke decorated glass for a period of one year, starting in 1894 and ending in 1895.'

2) Near the bottom of the article it states
'The writer is aware of the existence of Stevens and Williams rose bowls that have Mat-Su-No-Ke decorations applied but do not have the S&W registration.  Therefore, they are not a Mat-Su-No-Ke.  An example of this can be found in Mervyn Gulliver’s book, Victorian Decorative Glass British Designs, 1850-1914, on page 69, figure 14, and also on page 127.  Both images are of the same rose bowl.
'

The reference in Gullivers for that piece says:
'A vase manufactured by Stevens and Williams Limited using their Registered Design No 15353, dated October 18, 1884 ... .  The pontil mark is covered by a large clear glass raspberry type prunt, and the underside of the domed base is engraved with Rd.15353 '[/i]

3) Under the heading 'The piece is a Mat-Su-No-Ke if it has all of these characteristics:'

it lists a number of lettered points, one of which is:
B.    Has the Stevens and Williams registration (RD #15353) in longhand on the bottom of the rose bowl in conjunction with a doubled domed extended raspberry prunt.[/i]

If the vase on page 127 in Gullivers (the one with the reg number is engraved on the bottom) is the same piece as the piece where the base is featured only on page 69 of the same book, then I can see no double domed extended raspberry prunt.  It just look like a raspberry prunt.

In Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800-1914, page 304 there is discussion of the pincer patent and mention of Mat-su-no-ke, featuring two pieces, one in black and white plate 285 (that I think is the one I gave you the link to in Gorgeous Glass), the other a coloured satin piece on page 285 colour plate 30.  I cannot see any information in there that gives dates or references to it not being Mat-su-no-ke if it doesn't have the registration number on.
With ref the  comments in that article on the number of petals on a mat-su-no-ke flower, there is no discussion in British Glass, that I could see, on the number of 'petals' on a Mat-su-no-ke flower head.  Mine has 16, but counting the petals on the pattern they show in the article, it seems many have 13.

I will go and check my Stevens and Williams book now and add any further information if it is relevant. -
Edited adding information from that book (The Crystal Years)
page 16 mentions Mat-Su-No-Ke.  It says
'... This form of decoration was registered as No.15353 on 18 October 1884.' It doesn't make any reference to 'Pseudo Mat-Su-No-Ke' vases (ref the comment in the article 'Believe it or not, Stevens and Williams also made pseudo Mat-Su-No-Ke. ')or any mention that vases without the registration number are not Mat-Su-No-Ke, nor any reference to the number of feet a piece must have, nor a 'double' raspberry pontil mark.

I also cannot find any reference to production dates ( the article says only produced for one year), in either Gullivers, Charles Hajdamach's British Glass, or The Crystal Years (open to correction if anyone else finds any reference to production please)

I can't comment on any other parts of that article, but it appears there are comments made that might need to be verified by a source?

Your vase is-not mat-su-no-ke.  However the first thing I thought of when I saw it was my vase.  So hopefully someone might come along who knows these things better than me, and be able to tell if yours is by Stevens and Williams though

m

[flying free]

Please see my long post above.

In addition I'm adding some information found on the fairy-lamp site(please read the whole article to see the extracts in context)
http://www.fairy-lamp.com/Fairylamp/ArticleMatSuNoKe.html

Additional information on the article written on the Fairy Lamp site, has been supplied within the article from D. Hier.

In the article at the end it includes this information:
'The spelling of Mat-Su-No-Ke is derived from British Glass – 1800-1914 by Hajdamach. Other common spellings include: Matsu-No-Ke and Matsu No Ke.  In addition,  it is spelled "Matsu-no-kee" in the original S&W design books. (Courtesy Mr. Hier)'

Within the article it includes this information:
'The device illustrated and patented by John Northwood I was used for producing this type of applied flower. The "pincher" arrangement was used for cutting and pressing out the petal shape and by changing "dies" they were able to impress different designs for the stamen, etc. The central plunger device was also used for creating these designs and could, with a different insert, be used for Matsu-no-kee, however the random shape of Matsu-no-kee indicates that it was done with a simpler tool similar to that used for raspberry prunts, a device similar to that used with sealing wax. The description by my good friend Charles Hajdamach is a liberal extract from the John Northwood II precis of the patent. These flowers were produced in flint and colored whereby the colored flowers often have an opal core cased in colored flint. They were either "matted" as illustrated or left bright i.e. the natural finish. (Courtesy Mr. Hier)'

This candle holder piece is in the Corning
listed as Mat-su-Stevens and Williams - rough pontil mark and no registration number noted
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/mat-su-no-ke-candlestick

m

[flying free]

Just adding some more comments on the article that you linked to (in addition to my two long posts above this  )

In that article, it lists a number of points under the heading 'The piece is NOT Mat-Su-No-Ke:'

One of them is

'D.    If the flowers are colored or have a colored center of the flower-like and opal core.'

On the Fairy Lamp site, D Hier has added this information:

'The device illustrated and patented by John Northwood I was used for producing this type of applied flower. The "pincher" arrangement was used for cutting and pressing out the petal shape and by changing "dies" they were able to impress different designs for the stamen, etc. The central plunger device was also used for creating these designs and could, with a different insert, be used for Matsu-no-kee, however the random shape of Matsu-no-kee indicates that it was done with a simpler tool similar to that used for raspberry prunts, a device similar to that used with sealing wax. The description by my good friend Charles Hajdamach is a liberal extract from the John Northwood II precis of the patent. These flowers were produced in flint and colored whereby the colored flowers often have an opal core cased in colored flint. They were either "matted" as illustrated or left bright i.e. the natural finish. (Courtesy Mr. Hier)'

Also in that linked article under the heading

'The piece is a Mat-Su-No-Ke if it has all of these characteristics:'


'C.    It will normally have multiple branches or vines for feet.  There will be only three feet–never four.  The vine feet are always in the form of rustic oblique looping design.   Occasionally, registered Stevens and Williams Mat-Su- No-Ke are found with Stevens and Williams “rustic pattern ball feet” rather than rustic vine or branch feet– again three only.   '

Here is a piece in the Corning Museum under Mat-su-no-ke, which has four feet:
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/mat-su-no-ke-bowl?query=mat-su-no-ke&goto=node/51200&filter=%22bundle%3Aartwork%22&sort=bs_has_image%20desc%2Cscore%20desc%2Cbs_on_display%20desc&object=3

Just adding information to an article that might contain incorrect information for future reference.
Please anyone, feel free to comment or add referenced sources.

Michael, sorry  I didn't mean to hijack your thread, but there seem to be discrepancies in that article.

I hope someone can id your beautiful vase for you (I need a green smiley)
m

[rocco]

Thank you, m! Every letter of your contributions is highly appreciated!

Some interesting (and long ) reading -- I know much more about Mat-Su-No-Ke vases now than I ever wanted.
And I am very glad that you hijacked my thread -- I love a good research project!

I cannot really judge how reliable the information in that first article I linked to is, having no literature and very little knowledge about glass from that period; but after reading your additional info, I guess it should be taken with a grain of salt.
I wouldn't doubt a second that your vase is Ma-Tsu-No-Ke, Reg Nr present or not.

I searched the whole internet for "applied fruit / leaves", "cranberry", "Victorian", etc. etc., but wasn't able to find another sculptural piece like mine.
If this style and colour was very popular then -- it was surely copied by glassmakers around the world? (Usually I tend to believe that chances are much higher that I run across a piece of Bohemian glass here in Vienna rather than English glass. But I have been surprised before...)

I am glad you like my "Audrey II". 
I went to the seller 3 times until I decided that I couldn't leave without it.
Yes, the green smiley is terribly missed...

Michael

[flying free]

Michael,
Sorry for the amount of information   

In The Crystal Years it discusses how these pieces with applied decoration were made (by that I don't just mean Matsu-no-kee, I mean pieces with applied flowers/leaves/fruit in various forms etc).  And they were made over a long period of time in various guises it seems - many years.  For example, the book discusses applied pieces with flowers and leaves being made in 1850 in Stourbridge and Birmingham (pg 14) and also  that another registration for an improved technique under No. 403585 was applied for dating to 16 January 1903!

It is a very long piece so I can't precis it without losing some of the 'context'.  Yes, vases with applied detail were made by many makers, but there is nothing about your vase that I can personally see (of course I am open to correction here), having read about the Stevens and Williams applied pieces, that would preclude it possibly being made by Stevens and Williams.
The look/design  of it, the colours used, the thorn bulbous type stand and the polished pontil mark all seem to be fine for an English piece and also a piece from Stevens and Williams.  However, that doesn't mean it was made in England or by Stevens and Williams.  It's just that it's possible that it was.

What I mean is, if it were me, I would start my search with English makers, with Stevens and Williams being the first port of call
It's gorgeous.
m