Topic: Slag glass lidded jar, capstan with anchor on lid – attribution, please?

[agincourt17]

A slag glass lidded jar, the body of the jar patterned in detail to resemble a wooden ships’s capstan, and the lid surmounted with a recumbent anchor and rope. Approximately 5 inches tall. No identifying markings.

(Permission for the re-use of these images on the GMB granted by gemantiquesltd).

I have seen similar jar bases several times before, always in the same shades of purple slag glass and always unmarked, but this is the first time that I have seen it complete with the anchor lid. (I think it is most likely to be a tobacco jar, assuming that it was not simply a decorative item).

Originally described by the owner as a Sowerby piece, I’m almost certain that it is not by Sowerby (or by Davidson or Greener for that matter).

The particular slag colours and the fine detailing put me in mind of the slag glass pieces produced in the United States by Imperial, Westmoreland, and the like.

I would value the opinion of GMB members as to its attribution. 

Fred.

[Paul S.]

sorry can't help with an attribution  -  but must say that the Gods were with this piece with the anchor remaining unbroken for all these years.

My only comment would be that I might question the possibility of it being a tabacco jar (humidor) -  unless it has a very tight fitting lid.           I'm thinking of (is it the Doulton or Wedgwood ceramic tabacco jars?) examples where there is a rubber ring under the lid, which acts as a seal when the metal part of the the lid is screwed down creating an air-tight seal.

On the other hand maybe the Victorians quite liked dry baccy.

[agincourt17]

My understanding is that much of the slag glass produced in the United States by Imperial, Westmoreland et al. was actually manufactured between the late 1950s and through to the 1970s, so that it is only just about 'vintage' rather than antique. If the jar were indeed of this vintage variety, then that may well explain the excellent condition of it. Although very much in the style of Victorian slag glass, the ersatz American slag glass was often basically decorative rather than truly functional.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

that would make sense then (assuming you're correct)  -  it did seem a tall order to have remained in one piece since the C19 - and decorative only might well be the answer.

[Ohio]

Unless I missed something when checking this is not Imperial or Westmoreland & I am not at all certain its even U.S. however if it is then I would check into Atterbury (Pittsburgh, PA) who made large quantities of slag glass in the 1870s & 1880s. I do not have a comprehensive Atterbury reference but it certainly is the type of work they were capable of doing back then as I believe this is an older piece. I have a large Atterbury covd. piece that I attached to give you an idea of what they produced. I should add that a very significant number of old Atterbury molds were used by Imperial & Westmoreland in the 60s & 70s slag production.

[Sid]

Fred - at one point in time, there was general agreement on this site that items listed on a certain selling site were not to be discussed until after the auction was completed.  Why you ask? First and foremost, it is a courtesy to those who invest the time and effort to find these items.  Secondly but definitely related, there is no good reason why a person interested in bidding on the auction would provide any information at all.  I applaud your enthusiasm but would suggest that waiting a few more days before posting is no hardship.  I have had at least one auction directly and adversely impacted by a similar posting on this site.  At that time, I expressed my thoughts and still feel the same way.   

Ohio - Your piece is actually Challinor, Taylor's No. 13 Ware not Atterbury.  I don't think that current research supports that Westmoreland or Imperial re-used Atterbury moulds; instead they made new mould to make copies of the old designs.  My favorite example is Imperial's Atterbury Scroll pattern which was copied from a Challinor, Taylor design.

That is all I will say on this item.

Sid

[Ohio]

Sorry Sid I had no idea the pics were from an auction & if I did I would not have responded. On the Atterbury molds, I had been informed by at least two WMG collectors that a number of molds originated from Atterbury as well as a significant number of early WMG molds were in possession of a private individual who had stored these at Fenton for a number of years. This topic came up when Fenton closed for the final time & U.S. Glass purchased the factory...the private individual was scrambling trying to find storage space for the molds as they had to be moved although I have not inquired as to what/where the molds ended up.

Thanks for the correction. I thought it was Atterbury, Challoner & Hogan era & did not realize it was Challoner, Taylor.

[agincourt17]

Sid & Ohio, my apologies – I am suitably chastened. As a researcher rather than a collector, I’m afraid that my enthusiasm in the search for knowledge exceeded my regard for those whose interests lie elsewhere.

Fred.

[Paul S.]

I've great respect for the knowledge of the other contributors to this thread, all of whom have probably forgotten more about pressed glass than I shall ever know - and I made it clear that I was unable to help with attribution/provenance.

Unfortunately, I truly do not understand what lies behind Sid's comments - there seems to be a lack of explanation - what it is that we have done that is so wrong.      Has the Board previously made it clear that items on a certain selling site could not be discussed until after the auction was completed?     I don't recall that particular topic  -  and why is that that selling site is now not mentioned by name?           If there is some genuinely unique reason why this item should be off limits, then a proper explanation is owed at least out of courtesy.

quote.............  "I have had at least one auction directly and adversely impacted by a similar posting on this site.  At that time, I expressed my thoughts and still feel the same way".     
Is Sid suggesting that in the past GMB members have commented inaccurately on something in which he had a vested interest, and this has cost him a purchase/sale??         What specifically is it that we have said so far that might be harmful - isn't the purpose of the GMB to promote further knowledge of glass and to discuss openly the accuracy (or otherwise) of attribution/provenance.
Fred states that he has permission to use images of this piece, and comments that a Soweby attribution has been originally provided by the owner, although it appears that presently confirmation of that remains to be provided.         Is there a need for secrecy in this particular instance?            This lidded jar may be a Sowerby piece, but in the absence of confirmation then surely a discussion on the subject can only be helpful.                 Of course, if someone is deliberately withholding information (for commercial reasons), then that is to be deplored. 

Understandably the Mods/Board quite rightly do not permit libelous or potentially litigious comments to be made in reference to individual items on internet auction/selling sites - is it being implied that we have we been guilty of that in this instance??

Internet auctions of whatever nature are rife with inaccuracy and mis-attribution although most of the time we can do nothing to correct that, so from where I'm standing it can only be a good thing to discuss the validity/history/provenance of items with a view to providing better and more accurae knowledge for all.     However, if it's personal interests that lay behind these euphemistic comments, then that should be clarified.           

It appears that I may have mis-understood the aims of the GMB, and if so then this is not the place for me, and I thank those sincerely who have helped me over the past few years, and wish everyone good luck.  

[Ohio]

Paul to me its crystal clear & we have the same unenforceable policy on our U.S. board. Its simply a matter of courtesy not to publically post an ongoing auction that has not ended. For those that may stumble upon a gem when searching the auction sites & setup a snipe nothing is more frustrating that having someone post that very ongoing auction on a public board that announces "hey look at this...what is it? for every Tom, Dick & Harry to view & perhaps decide "hey I want that!". Its simple...it increases the likelyhood of decreasing the odds the original interested party had to be successful procuring the item for their very own. Its called frustration & it has little to do with what the board's objectives are, but there is a time & place for everything & seeking an ID for an item during an ongoing auction (unless you are the original seller) can lead to frustration for those who  originally stumbled upon said item. Now once the auction ends even if it doesn't sell is fine, those interested parties had their shot & either won or lost so no problem.

Maybe you don't search auctions, I don't know, but for those of us that do, yes its frustrating when this happens & I know exactly where Sid is coming from although I am certain no harm was intended by the OP, these things just happen & I don't think anything other than simple frustration showed in Sid's comments.