Topic: Glass that has a mark stating Stevens and Williams on it

[flying free]

I've been trying to look for Stevens and Williams marks for a long while whilst trying to find the earliest date that the Stevens and Williams 'Alabaster' range was produced.
(I'll find links to other threads in a minute to add here)
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,55815.msg316340.html#msg316340
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,6601.msg316268.html#msg316268

Charles Hajdamach's British Glass 1800 - 1914 shows a fleur de lys acid etched mark on page 449 for Stevens and Williams and says
'...on slender green alabaster vase with white foot, late 19th century...'

He also discusses fake Stevens and Williams and Thomas Webb marks on page 394-401.

In a previous thread which I asked to be removed there was mention of possible fake fleur-de-lys acid etched marks.  I have not found any mention of faked acid etched fleur de lys marks for Stevens and Williams. 
I have found mention of faked Fleur-de-lys marks for Steuben.

I came across this lovely piece identified as Harrach 1870s/1880s drip rim (sold) where it is noted that the Stevens and Williams mark is 'superfluous', so thought I would add a link here for future interest.

http://www.thegildedcurio.com/item-Harrach-36.html

m

[Lustrousstone]

I think that is one of the "fake" marks. There was a facebook discussion concerning this mark with the owner of this piece and other people. They seem to be on pieces in the USA

[flying free]

Thanks
Different mark and piece to the other we were discussing but interesting that it appears on a drip rim piece that dates to around 1870s/1880s.
m

[flying free]

On page 31 of The Crystal Years under the Chapter 'Nineteenth Century Cameo' it says the following regarding marks:
'Unfortunately Stevens and Williams often failed to have all their wares artist signed and some were not even trade marked, but later the mark was the famous S and W on either side of a fleur de lys, set in a round, deep, bright, acid etched circle or Stevens & Williams Art Glass Stourbridge again in a circle.
Neither of those described mentioned marks (though they might only refer to 19th century cameo glass pieces since that the chapter the remarks fall under) are the same as the mark on the piece were were discussing on the thread I asked to be removed.

On page 34 the author is describing what appear to be very expensive rock crystal pieces.  The description implies that these pieces were not marked.  I'm just wondering, if it appears cameo and rock crystal i.e. very expensive pieces of glass,were not marked that date to 1880s/ 1890s, how come a mark might appear on a vase that is neither of those (but still might have been expensive to produce I concede),
m

[Bernard C]

On page 31 of The Crystal Years under the Chapter 'Nineteenth Century Cameo' it says the following regarding marks:
'Unfortunately Stevens and Williams often failed to have all their wares artist signed and some were not even trade marked,    ...

I find it very strange indeed that any author should consider an apparent failure or error a legitimate reason for any action or lack of action by such a successful business.   It seems to me that when looking for a reason for anything to do with such businesses, a failure or error outcome simply indicates that you haven't considered enough possibilities.

It seems to me that S&W did not regard identifying themselves by marking objects important as regards Joe Public end user.   Indeed marking would have caused stock control difficulties when a stock of unmarked pieces would have had to be maintained for trade buyers who did not want the maker identified — possibly Liberty's for example.

Just off the top of my head, possible reasons for an identifying mark might have included:-

Prominent "museum quality" pieces likely to end up displayed in important collections,

Trade samples,

Rep's samples,

S&W's showroom pieces,

Agent's showroom pieces,

Exhibition pieces,

Pieces "ordered by" or, more accurately, "donated to" Royalty*,

Donated trophies, retirement gifts, and the like.

Certainly limited use of the S&W mark along these lines would account for the mark's rarity.   Is this suggestion realistic?

Bernard C. 

* — Where did I see the piece about the most expensive objects being removed from exhibition stands when they knew that acquisitive Royalty was on its way?

[glassobsessed]

I was under the impression that glass was not generally marked until Galle started the trend but when would that have been?

As per usual I would expect there to be exceptions though...

John

[flying free]

John, Richardson's marked their glass c.1847 (although I don't know if they marked all of it) as did Bacchus, so quite early on. 
Though not with an acid etched mark.
m