Topic: Pretty little bowl marked 'Daum'

[brewster]

European glass is mostly outside my comfort zone (I'm happier with Australian studio glass). Recently we have acquired three items from various antiques and collectables shops near our new rural abode, which if correct to my identification are far from their birthplaces. The first is this pretty little bowl, 6cm high by 11.5cm in diameter and engraved 'Daum Nancy France'. It is remarkably heavy for its diminutive size, so plausibly it is made of high lead crystal.

The strong top lighting in the first photo does not do justice to the colouring, which is better seen in close-up in the last photo. The base has been polished flat and the pontil scar has also been polished out leaving a concave well. There's enough random scratching to the base to satisfy the most discerning connoisseur of age-related wear, along with some roughness to the edge. The deeply engraved signature matches others I have found online. However, if I search for examples of Daum objects all I get are much larger and fancier pieces.

My questions: is it genuine and approximately what age?

Trevor

[glassobsessed]

Yes genuine, 1920s or 30s I believe, if Mike M sees this he may be more definitive.

Similar to: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,49289.0.html

The signatures on these bowls are interesting as they were inscribed while the glass was still hot.

John

[David E]

The signatures on these bowls are interesting as they were inscribed while the glass was still hot.

I imagine they would have used a small metal tool to impress the logo into the glass?

[glassobsessed]

Tricky on a curved surface David, in the thread I linked to Mike says "signatures should be cut hot, not scratched". The signature on the Jade bowl I had looked as though it was made with a sharp tool rather than being impressed.

[Mike M]

Hi

yes that's fine - Daum -c1920-1930

Often called one of the 'Jades'

and yes original signature

M

[brewster]

Thanks folks, for the confirmation and extra information. I'm still puzzled how the inscription can be cut with the glass hot. Surely there is not someone writing it freehand, as with engraving? Is the tool like a branding iron? Would the problem of curvature be solved by having each of the words on separate irons?

Trevor

[glassobsessed]

You haver the benefit of having the bowl and signature to study closely, what do you think? On mine I saw no evidence of a tool with the signature in relief having been pressed into the side so assumed inscribed with a sharp point.





 

[David E]

It would then be fire-polished afterwards, John. Also, the signatures should differ from vase to vase - being the same and it would be some form of mechanical impression. Just a thought...

[glassobsessed]

Enough fire polishing and the signature would 'fade away' too. I did not keep a photo of the sig on this one so can't compare, might as well add the bowl for reference though.

[brewster]

Thanks, John and David. Even with the example in hand, I find it hard to say how the signing has been done. The incision is deep into the material but the edges are smooth and fairly level with the parent material, as can be seen in the fourth photo of the original post. That outcome could be achieved by either cutting or pressing into the near molten material, perhaps with some further gentle working to smooth the surface without obliterating the incision. The only way that I'd be sure would be with second example for comparison, where the normal handwriting variations - even between two specimens by the same person - would indicate that the signature was cut freehand.

The only examples I can find online of a deeply incised signature on a Daum item are in quite different handwriting from what's on my little bowl, including different combinations of upper and lower case letters. But they are quite different objects, so they may also differ in time period and glassmaker.

Trevor