Topic: Flashed and engraved 60's blue vase

[Paul S.]

looking again think Ivo is probably correct  -  the surface does have that almost slightly carnival type of iridescent appearance that you see on the smooth insides of some 'marigold' bowls.

[Scott13]

Hi, Ivo and Paul
Ivo I'm sure you're right.
However, I'm just beginning to think that I may have over emphasised the iridescent qualities of the glass.
The iridescence is essentially confined to the rim at the join( and only really becomes evident with a 10x lens); there is very little evidence of surface or any other iridescence in the body of the piece( in a bright light)
I know I may appear to be back-pedalling like mad and I apologise if I've misled you all.
Please take into account my lack of experience.
I've posted another, hopefully better picture.
Thanks
Scott

[Lustrousstone]

I suspect this is Caithness but considerably newer than 1960s. The shape and general style look OK. The top and bottom look OK. The engraving may be sand blasted though, not wheel engraved. Many coloured glass items are not solid colour but a thin layer of colour over or under clear. The colour is the expensive bit.

[Paul S.]

if it is, then I don't think it's from the range I mentioned  -  it looks a little too blue for 'Images'.      But there were some groups from the 1990's that possibly matched a little closer.
However, I'd go with Scott's thoughts that it's engraved, rather than sand blasted  -  the image looks to have some depth in places.

[Scott13]

I'm 99.9 percent sure that it's been wheel engraved----it has, depth and you can see the marks/lines left by the engravers wheel( using a 10x lens)
It certainly hasn't been acid etched as I've been able to compare it with an etched Caithness piece I have.
Sand blasting I know nothing about----I'm assuming that it leaves an even finish as well.
The reason I thought it might have come from the 60's/70's was because of the amount of base wear--- but of course this wear could be misleading.
Thanks for your contributions.
Scott

[Lustrousstone]

Sandblasting is done in layers, so it's not flat. Most Caithness was actually sandblasted even from the early days, apparently. Your vase looks like a 4019 in Twilight made from the 1960s through to the 1980s, and engraved or sandblasted from the 1970s. As far as I know, Caithness didn't acid etch

[Scott13]

Hi---I've had a look at some images of the 4019 and I can see the similarity ,however,it's shape looks a bit different; more barrel than bullet.
It's rim also looks thinner.
Thanks for your help and also for providing the info on sandblasting.
Scott

[Scott13]

Hi---however much I'd like to think that the vase I've got is an early Caithness one, there are a couple of things that prevent me from doing so.
1: I'm not sure whether Caithness flashed items prior to engraving.
2: The rim of my vase hasn't been ground and polished. I understand this tends to be a feature of most Caithness vases.
Anyway I'd like to thank you all for taking the time and trouble to help---much appreciated.
Scott

[Lustrousstone]

Something must have been done to your rim, as there is no pontil mark and it certainly looks ground. And, if the base part is not coloured, your vase wasn't flashed. As I said before the colour is often a thin layer

[Scott13]

Hi---the rim has definitely not been ground---I've looked using a 10x lens.
In this instance the camera did lie.
The rims of my Caithness vases are flat and clearly defined. And you can see( on the inside edge ) minute flakes left by the grinder.
The rim of my vase isn't nearly as flat, in fact, in places it's quite curved. And there's no sign of flaking anywhere. It might have been fire-polished?
I'll try and describe it's exterior surface as best I can.
The film( for want of a better word, I'll call it that ) starts at the top of the rim--approx mid-way.
There's a very faint join line here. It's here that you get some iridescence/rainbow colours ( only really noticeable under a lens)
This film has been applied to cover the whole external surface of the vase ( other than the base ie the bit it sits on)
The film finishes about 1-2mm from the bottom of the vase. Where it finishes there's another very faint line, albeit wavy in places.
So ,the only part that hasn't been covered is essentially the part that the vase sits on.
The base, which is clear, is fairly dished. In it's centre there is possibly the vestige of a Pontil scar---a small hardly noticeable swelling.
I hope all this makes sense.