Topic: Large Harbridge 1930's art deco cut glass vase perhaps missing it's frog .

[Paul S.]

thanks for posting Sue - a very attractive piece, and I could offer it a very good home if ever you want to part withit   ......  did occur to me - in view of the uncommoness of Harbridge - whether the Mods might let us start a picture file especially for that factory

As requested herewith pictures attached of my Stuart/Stonier vase with frog/support.   
             
British Rd. Nos. normally protect body shapes/designs only, rather than decorative features such as cutting, and in view of the date of May 1914 for Reg. No. 637674 showing on the support, I had assumed that the sister No. 637675 - from precisely the same date - must cover the shape of the vase (although this vase is without a No.)
Then a little panic set in - I thought I'd found a match for the shape of the vase in Miller's/McConnell, where the start date of what I thought was the same shape is given as c. 1931  -  so confusion  -  had it been the same shape as my vase I would have expected the caption to show a start date of 1914.

However, I'm of the opinion that the book vase (Stuart factory pattern No. 27480) is not quite the same as my example.           Could be wrong but there appear to be differences in overall shape  -  although if you compare the two there are sufficient similarities to cast doubt - so I'm now not entirely sure and this will need a visit to Kew I think.
The vase is very distinctive with these massive scallops around the rim.

Of course Stuart may well have produced one or two vase shapes over the years that could accommodate this rather wide support  ...   it measures almost 185 mm (7.25") at the widest - and the factory is well known for continuing some pattern shapes for many decades.

Apologies for digressing from the rather nice Harbridge vase.  

Ref. 'MILLER'S 20TH - CENTURY GLASS   -  Andy McConnell  -  2006  ...p. 238.

[chopin-liszt]

I'm afraid I'm quite fond of it, Paul. It has a lot of sentimental attachment for me, my Grandma started giving me cookery lessons when I was 4, so anything to do with home-baking and jam-making that was hers is stuff I'm very attached to and do still use. (Including the ancient balance scales she had - they still work!)
I use it to hold the washing powder scoop I use to measure out the cat's food, so it is in daily use.

[Baked_Beans]

Thanks SO much Sue & Paul , you have made my day ! Great to see your grandma's piece Sue , obviously a woman with great taste !

Paul your vase looks splendid , that's the first cut-glass frog I've seen , what a great find ! The position is way-up near the rim, as are all the other frogs I have seen , so I have to think that the scratching on my vase could well be due to a rock on a ring (as you suggested)! I stuck my hand in , pretending to do the washing-up, and it does look as if the marks could have been made by a ring , they fall in the same position !  ( it must have been a big rock though ...lucky girl  )

I like your idea Paul of a pictorial database of Harbridge designs as there is so little information out there and it would be a tribute to all their cutting skills and expertise .

Thanks again  Mike.

[Paul S.]

In view of my comments about the relationship of Rd. Nos. with articles of glass, then it's possible that when I do get to The National Archives all I will see is a design in the form of an uncut blank.       However, it will be interesting to see the shape of 637675, which I'm assuming is a design for a vase - but can't be certain at the moment.         
Will let you know how I get on.

I'd not given the subject of frogs/supports for cut glass items much thought until very recently, but it does appear at the moment that such combinations are very rare.

[chopin-liszt]

If my Grandma ever had good taste in arty stuff it was completely accidental, Baked-beans!
She committed many, many antique "crimes". (removing the top "crowning" section of a massive bookcase and burning it, getting fed up with having an antique marquetry burr-walnut, round dining table my mother had bought being stored in her garage and throwing it out, without warning. She didn't need or use her garage. No, Grandma was a weird one, but she did like me, I was a little girl and she liked little girls. I had immunity from her weirdness.)

I have seen quite a few of these strange cut frogs around, (but I did volunteer in Oxfam).
I knew what they were; but I would think anybody finding one in the back rooms of charity shops would possibly bin them, not knowing what they were. 

[Baked_Beans]

Ahh, bless her ! I too was immune from my grandad who had a very strong personality ,so I know what it's   like  He loved mustard and had it with everything ,in large heaps on the side of his plate. I still have his moulded glass mustard pot. The lid broke on it, so he made a copy of it in plywood  It just reminds me of the lovely breakfasts he used to cook for us all, with huge mushrooms he picked from the fields at the back of the garden . You just can't put a price on sentimental value .

Good luck with your investigations Paul , that's the joy of glass collecting !

Ta ,..very much 

[Paul S.]

quote  .......   "with huge mushrooms he picked from the fields at the back of the garden"   ......... presume Mike that you had Baked Beans with them

Yes, will let you know how I get on at Kew.

[Baked_Beans]

Ha ha ! Yes , indeed  ...plus bantam eggs  Might change my name to bantam_eggs sounds more sophisticated 

I'm such a fan of cut glass and I'm sure one day it will see a renaissance   

It will be interesting to see what discoveries you reveal 

[Paul S.]

ref. my own quote............ "However, it will be interesting to see the shape of 637675, which I'm assuming is a design for a vase - but can't be certain at the moment."

nope - wrong again - Rd. 637675 is in fact another flower support - very unusual I'd imagine for Stuart to Register two different cut frogs/supports on the same day, and can only assume that they already had it mind that one or both would be compatible with existing vase shapes, or perhaps new designs they had in the pipeline.            Regret I still don't know the Rd. No. for my Stuart vase shown here although it does look to be a genuine pairing with the support.   When either piece was made I've no idea  -  the supports may have had a relatively short life - I don't recall seeing one previously.     Of course if anyone knows differently please shout.

I've attached National Archives pix of 637674 and 75.          My own knowledge of the trading years of John Stonier's business is sketchy, other than the fact that Bernard has already commented that Frederick Stuart installed his own sons as directors when the Stonier business was acquired by Stuart around 1876  -  this information was provided courtesy of Mr. Gulliver I understand.
For how long the =S= was marked on Stonier pieces I've no idea, or when it commenced or ceased.
Also attached is a copy of the wording on the reverse of each Archive picture for these two Nos.  -  it's the same wording for both Rd. Nos.  -  hope it's legible - the final sentence is the standard wording that appears on the reverse of just about all Rd. drawings etc., but quite why the main wording looks to be deleted with a squiggle I don't know.

Again my apologies for piggy-backing on the op's thread, but thought it worthwhile showing the Archives pix of these Registered flower supports.                  I've said enough on this matter, other than my usual thanks to the guys at Kew for their help and continued permission for the GMB to access data.        

[chopin-liszt]

Is the Stuart one you first posted a pic of, round or oval, Paul?
I have seen an oval one. It was in a vase with an oval shaped inside. (surprise!)