Topic: Damaged Art Nouveau Open Salt Applied ''Claws'' & Blue Blobs ID Help

[Dingledodger]

Hello,

Has anyone seen anything quite like this at all? Sorry for the poor lighting in the photos. Any info appreciated.

Thanks, Ben

[keith]

Simple answer is no, not me anyway, will be interested to see if someone does know,

[Robin G]

Ben, (dingledodger)
I am brand new to this message board, and I know you posted these pics a few years ago, but I do have some info. I don't know the rules about showing photos and info from books, but your salt is pictured in "Collectible Glass- British Glass Book 4" by Wallace Homestead Books. This is the collection of C.C. Manley. He had many salts, and this one is illustration#287. We purchased some of his pieces, so the image I'm posting is the actual one in this book. I've placed another one of his next to it. This has the same blue spheres but on controlled air bubble glass. His attribution is Stourbridge, or Geo. Barnes, Birmingham, c.1873.

[Mod: The image below was temporarily removed while its copyright position was considered. Robin has explained the situation and the image is now restored.

[Paul S.]

unusual and attractive salts  -  have to say I've never seen anything similar before either.     Congratulations Robin for locating this in the books.
 

[KevinH]

Firstly, thanks Robin for recognizing this item.

We purchased some of his pieces, so the image I'm posting is the actual one in this book. I've placed another one of his next to it. This has the same blue spheres but on controlled air bubble glass. His attribution is Stourbridge, or Geo. Barnes, Birmingham, c.1873.

As seen above, Robin's image posted in Reply #2 has had to be removed. Also, although I have a copy of the Wallace-Homestead book, I cannot find it so I am unable to checks things out. [Mod: Sorted and image restored]

However, I attended the auction (Giles Haywood, 3/4 Nov 1993) in which Manley's very large salt collection was sold (lot by lot as nobody wanted to buy the whole collection!) and I do still have the auction catalogue. Lot 642 was described as:

Four salts comprising pair 19th Century BIRMINGHAM clear glass circular [sic] with foldover welted circular foot, having shell side handles with turquoise-blue beads to handles and body, 'G H BARNES' c1870, 2.5" diameter; and pair 19th Century ENGLISH circular airtrap with three 'shell' clear glass side handles and turquoise bead decoration, 2.5" diameter (Plate centre colour III)

The colour plate shows only one pair of those salts and they do not have the "foldover welted" foot, They do show "controlled bubbles" which is basically in keeping with the auctioneer's description of "airtrap". It is that footless, "airtrap" salt, stated to be simply "ENGLISH", with no maker specified, which matches the overall form of Ben's piece.

What we have is a query ... did Cyril Manley change his attribution of the "controlled bubble" salt after the Wallace Homestead book was published (1968/9?), or was it a change made by the auctioneer?

[KevinH]

Robin, I may have misunderstood your post and removed your image unnecessarily (I can restore it if that is the case). Please confirm whether the image you posted was of your own items or was a copy of images from the Wallace-Homestead book.

My reason for asking is that I have now found my copy of the Wallace-Homestead book (second printing 1978) and the photo of item #287 (which is the footed salt) is not the same image as the one you had in the photo you posted. Also, I cannot see a "controlled bubble" salt in my copy of the book, so maybe your photos were of your actual examples?

Or was the first printing of the book in the US different from the second print version that I have?

[Robin G]

I'm sorry my post and photo raised more questions rather than answering them.

Ben's salt is not in a photograph in the Wallace Homestead book (I also have the 1978 edition). I was mistaken in saying so.  But it seems to match the description in the auction catalog you mentioned, of the air-trap salts. My husband & I purchased that lot, of 2 pairs. I'm not sure we even saw the catalog listing, as we did not attend, and had someone else bid for us. As described, one pair is like Ben's, 3 shell or "claw" appendages on the side, with 3 turquoise blue beads on each one, no foot. Since there is no photo in the book, Manley did not describe it so it could not have been changed for the catalog.

The other pair was also clear glass, no bubbles, but with 2 sets of 3 beads, also set on applied shells or claws. They also have single beads equidistant to the grouping of 3 beads. It is footed. This salt is what is pictured as # 287. This is how the confusion has set in. The book pic may not have been clear enough to see that it has no bubbles. If you restore my photo, you can see which one resembles Ben's, and which one is #287. I have no idea about the maker's attribution. But both the salts I pictured are my actual ones (with less than stellar photography) and not reproduced from either the book or the catalog.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but as I am new, I want to be clear, and to keep to your guidelines. I hope to continue on this message board, and I have learned that mistakes will not slide by!

[KevinH]

Thanks Robin, the image is back in place. And I think your photo is just fine and shows the detail we need.

So we agree ... Ben's salt is the one that you said had "controlled bubbles" but which the auctioneers called "airtrap". And therefore the auctioneers classification of "English" is as close as we can get to an attribution of some sort.

I, and hopefully lots of others, look forward to your future contributions to the Board.

[Paul S.]

In his 'British Glass 1800 - 1914' page pp. 278 - 279, under Patents and Techniques, Charles Hajdamach shows a picture (b. & w. unfortunately) of a clear bowl (it could be optically moulded but I can't be sure), on which are vertical rows (eleven I think), of turquoise beads, similar to the appearance to the salts posted here.          The bowl is small  -  2.25 inches tall, and dates to early C20, he says, and am sure the beads are smaller than those on the salts.
C.H. devotes half a page in giving details of the technique patented by H. Wilkinson in 1905, and in fact quotes verbatim from Wilkinson how this technique, which starts out as threading and ends up appearing as beads of turquoise attached to the outside of the bowl, are spaced at regular intervals.
Too long winded to quote here, but struck me as having sufficient design similarity to the appearance of the pieces here, that it would be of interest.

It's probable that Wilkinson's fairly complex process of manufacture which started life as a threading round the bowl and is then spun, has no relevance to the simplistic manufacture of the salts, where - probably - the beads are applied manually, end of story.          But perhaps Wilkinson thought the artistic appearance of this design was of sufficient appeal to make it worthwhile to patent an idea that started life c. third of a century earlier??

[flying free]

Following on from Paul,

Mervyn Gulliver in his book Victorian Decorative Glass,British Designs, 1850-1914

shows a clear vase with vertical rows of turquoise glass beads.  They are very similar turquoise to these salts but the beads are smaller.
He says it is decorated in a manner similar to that patented in 1905 by H. Wilkinson.
He gives it's age as c.1905.

I would say the beads are yes, smaller, but they are a very similar opaline effect turquoise.


A better match for the beads is a small salt in clear glass with 3 applied 'shell ribbed prunts' around the sides.  In the middle of each ';prunt' is a largish turquoise bead.
Mervyn gives that age as c.1885 - but sorry, no indication of maker.

And not all the glass in the book, despite the title, is 'British Design'.

m