Topic: Vase signed G.S.F. - American?

[flying free]

Paul , is that the correct spelling of Wittmann and Roth?

If so, apologies as I didn't check before typing that name and distracted by a phone call I can no longer edit my post.

m

[flying free]

ok I've found a bit more information that I'd posted before I think  - there is a clear version with scales that is also assigned to Wittman and Roth and comes in various forms - it has an rd number of 39086.
Accompanying a listing for a jug was some information-


The link below shows a jug. The information accompanying that listing might be where I'd read about the Bohemian connection.
Info on the listing is as follows:

'Registered Design number 39086 was allocated to 'Sidney Wittmann, of Wittmann & Roth' London, described as 'Glass & China Manufacturer', on 30th November 1885. The design was described as 'Raised pattern on glass surface to imitate hammered metal'. Sidney and F Pohl, a member of the Bohemian Pohl family, apparently patented a method of making glass in imitation of tortoise shell on 25th October 1880. That would appear to date this creamer quite well ca. 1885 - 1890, as the pitcher is signed with the acid mark capital W within an Owl standing on a crescent moon. Carved & Decorated European Art Glass / all by Ray & Lee Grover; British Glass 1800-1914 / by Charles R. Hajdamach; Victorian Decorative Glass British Designs, 1850-1914 / by Mervyn Gulliver; Decorative Victorian Glass / by Cyril Manley; Nineteen Century British Glass / by Hugh Wakefield -- part of a collection of art glass to be sold live on eBayLiveAuctions on Oct 5th at 1pm, Andy & Rob Collection.
Length:4
Width:0
Height:4.75
Weight LB:0
Weight OZ:12
CONDITION:
minor loss of paint'

https://new.liveauctioneers.com/item/5715096

I think it might be fairly circumspect to link Wittman and Roth with Pohl given the description on the listing (e.g. using 'tortoiseshell' to describe a fishscale pattern) and to link Pohl therefore with these type of fishscale designs.  However, it could be that the clear versions are more 'tortoiseshell like' in pattern rather than symmetric 'fishscale like' perhaps.
So it might be fair to link in this way to the clear versions. 
But anyway, this is where I think the thinking came from linking a Bohemian maker to these pieces.

[Paul S.]

some good sleuthing m  -  but we must be cautious about introducing too much irrelevant material.

quote     .......   "is that the correct spelling of Wittmann and Roth?"   -     tis indeed.

The 'live aution' comments are very confusing, and the top caption to the cream jug is wrong  -  the pattern is not tortoishell, but hammered - which is stated correctly later down in the text.
We must ignore all references to tortoishell in this instance, which was a visual colour effect, and not a surface texture appearance such as this hammered look.............   will be confusing if we don't.

I'm in no doubt that the surface texture of the red bulbous vase at the beginning of this thread is identical to what is being described as a hammered finish on the cream jug, and quoted in your link as 'raised pattern on glass surface to imitate hammered metal' - Registered Design No. 39086  -  Thompson also confirms this description when listing 39086.
Unfortunately, I don't presently have a picture of the Kew image of 39086 from 30th November 1885, which is a post lozenge period Registration - and will have to wait until next week.
Charles Hajdamach describes in some detail the making of the tortoishell glass - but completely omits any reference to the Registration for the 'hammered' invention of Rd. 39086 - so not our day there.

We appear to be able to now discount Harrach, and must ignore any reference to tortoishell when speaking of the hammered design, which has more of an appearance of honeycomb, possibly, but maybe that's just my eyes.

So - we need to know the type of manufacturing process of Rd. 39086  -  is it simply some rather clever form of pressed glass manufacture, or a different process involving cutting or acid - can anyone on the Board help with that question?

I was just a little surprised at the quality of the gilding on the foot of the red vase, but some pieces are cared for more than others.

[flying free]

ok, this was Alisha's post about a possible Harrach version. Alisha writes in her description that on the clear version with the Wittmann and Roth mark and three gilded feet, the pattern is raised above the surface of the vase as opposed to the pink versions which have the pattern 'embedded' into the glass.
She also shows a tall vase with a  'fishscale' type pattern on it that appears to be different to either her fishscale clear marked vase or the pink ones and says that tall vase is Harrach.

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35137.msg307103.html#msg307103

Two things I observe -
1) it seems to me that her clear vase with the marked rd number on the base is different pattern to her tall version id'd as Harrach? and
2) although the reg design marks are different on the clear raised pattern vase (39086)and the pink vases with embedded pattern marks (rd 41925 see http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/4696 for example),
they are both registered by Wittmann and Roth.

The key is to find a definitive source of who Wittman and Roth were.
Then to find primary evidence of where they ordered these vases from.

These two vases from Fieldings (sold as Webb's):
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/104885
are the pair I referred to that have the same ridged zig zag gilded collar as this cream fishscale vase (which has a black script enamelled signature of GLF (GSF ) on the base:
http://eronjohnsonantiques.com/products/g0720-english-stevens-and-williams-koi-decorated-glass-vase
and which appears to be a similar or the same shape as this pink fishscale vase:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,35137.msg255206.html#msg255206

m

[KevinH]

So - we need to know the type of manufacturing process of Rd. 39086  -  is it simply some rather clever form of pressed glass manufacture, or a different process involving cutting or acid - can anyone on the Board help with that question?

A feature that I cannot get my head around (maybe I am just being a bit slow?) is that some of the examples shown clearly have the raised design continuing to the top of the neck - but some keep going over the top of the rim.

In fact, the eBay item linked to at the start of this thread shows a very clear continuation of the pattern onto what seems to be a standard flat cut rim, probably with a bevelled edge - and the pattern is within a painted (or gilded) rim top. Not only that, but the top of the rim clearly shows uneven wear of some kind revealing the plain flat white of the base colour of the vase, without any "scale" pattern.

 How could this be achieved?

[flying free]

The rim is cut, bevelled and polished flat and appears to have a design cut into it - but to my eye the design is not the same as the fishscale pattern on the body of the vase?
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xXIAAOSwnQhXohYE/s-l1600.jpg

[flying free]

A feature that I cannot get my head around (maybe I am just being a bit slow?) is that some of the examples shown clearly have the raised design continuing to the top of the neck - but some keep going over the top of the rim.

In fact, the eBay item linked to at the start of this thread shows a very clear continuation of the pattern onto what seems to be a standard flat cut rim, probably with a bevelled edge - and the pattern is within a painted (or gilded) rim top. Not only that, but the top of the rim clearly shows uneven wear of some kind revealing the plain flat white of the base colour of the vase, without any "scale" pattern.

 How could this be achieved?

Perhaps they are blown in white, cased in pink and then blown out into a mold which has the scale pattern on it?
Then the necks are hand cut in the zig zag design and the rims hand cut, polished and bevelled?
The cream one obviously not cased in pink though, just blown out into a mold with a the scale pattern inside it.

On another note it appears Wittmann and Roth also commissioned Loetz for vases?
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/188729-loetz-octopus-vase-pn-unknown-wittmann

Sidney Adolphus Wittmann and Richard Charles Wittmann
47 Great Marlborough Street
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26703/page/444/data.pdf

Newpaper advert from Wittmann and Roth 1890 April 1 The POttery Gazette.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/35733280/

Plying their trade with American and Colonial buyers - appear to me to be 'the middleman'.  They comment that their good cannot be found elsewhere and are registered.  So.. perhaps they registered the items because they had designed them and commissioned them from makers ... maybe Bohemian in light of the Loetz vases.

edited to add :  Here is information on the Loetz site about Wittmann and Roth and Loetz
http://www.loetz.com/featured-articles/loetz-octopus-victoria-and-the-english-connection


m

[Paul S.]

surprised that Fieldings saying T/Webb for Rd. 41925 - not the sort of error you'd expect them to make - this was a 'pattern worked on body of the glass to represent fish scales'.          But it's an intriguing pattern, covering the body entirely as it does - but they say it was cut, so cut it was, but as we know it was a decorative design Registered in 1886 to Wittmann & Roth of London.           
Is it possible that this blank was made by T/Webb, bought by Wittmann & Roth, and decorated by their cutters  -   or imported as a blank and then cut by W. & R.  -  I don't see it being a practicable issue to import an expensive piece which had already been made and cut in Bohemia.
Am sure we'll never know.

Apart from being able to provide Kew images of the original drawings for Wittmann & Roth Registrations Nos. 39086 and 41925, which I hope to do in the coming days, this sort of decorative ware not my area, so shouldn't really be commenting, other than to say..............
I think it will help if we use only the description 'hammered' for this piece and those with similar surface decoration.
As mentioned above and in some of the links, there are pieces being referred to that do have genuine 'fish scale' decoration - so think we have to make it very clear when using that description as to which Registration we're referring to - otherwise we might get very confused.
As I've discovered when looking at Kew drawings, information as to methodology etc. is usually non-existent, so we may not pick up any more useful info from them - but worth a try.

W. & R. Registered other designs, for patterns of lamp shades, and 'patterns - whatever they were - so might have a look at those when I'm at Kew.

[flying free]

Paul, it would be wonderful to have the Kew information   Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.


I think the information Warren Galle has mentioned in his article on the Loetz vases made for Wittmann and Roth is very important.

It explains the relationship between Loetz and Wittmann and Roth, and also explains to some degree
a) why the vases were registered by Wittmann and Roth
b) how Wittmann and Roth asked for them to be marked to denote their registration in the UK, and
c) for how long the design was registered to Wittmann and Roth in the UK.

http://www.loetz.com/featured-articles/loetz-octopus-victoria-and-the-english-connection


However:
- whilst the Loetz site gives evidence for the link with Loetz and Wittmann & Roth, it doesn't get us any further as to the maker of the ' fishscale ' /' hammered ' pink  or cream vases,
- or the clear raised ' hammered ' design vases (i.e Alisha's which has the three gold ball feet. 

Questions:
Perhaps they were also produced by Loetz? 
Perhaps Wittmann & Roth used other Bohemian makers to produced designs for them or bought their designs - e.g. Harrach?

m

[flying free]

sorry - just trying to get my head straight here -

a)  Having read the long previous thread it appears I did find a pink vase with 'fishscale' decoration with the design number 39086 painted on the base apparently in black with a thin border around the number. Link was to a vase in Trocadero and it's now dead.

The 39086 rd number has been found impressed on the clear fishscale vases registered by Wittmann and Roth.
Note - the pink vase I found only had the number enamelled on the bottom in black.


b) then I found this Fieldings version also pink, with an rd number of 41925 (apparently registered by Wittmann and Roth (see d) ) and sold by Fieldings as Thomas Webb.





http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/4696


c)  these pink 'fishscale' type vases with a cream interior have been seen with enamelled GSF or GLF signatures on

d)   Paul looked up the rd number 41925 with info as follows:

'...interesting to note that Rd. 41925 dated 26th January 1886 is included in Thompson, and described by her (although possibly taken from another location) as "Pattern worked on body of the glass to represent fish scales" ...'
and
'The Registrant for 41925 was Wittmann & Roth, London, 'Glass & China Manufacturer'. '

e) Then another pair were sold by Fieldings as Thomas Webb that have a similar/the same zig zag collar to one in cream 'fishscale' with bulbous body and which has a GLS GFS signature only on the base. The cream bulbous body vase  is remarkably similar to a pink fishscale vase in the same shape, except it is fully cream,not pink over cream.

Which begs the questions:

Why did Fielding sell one with that RD 41925 number on as Webb?

Where is the proof it was made by Webb's?

and also
How come I found a pink fishscale version with the design number 39086 enamelled on it's base?

Were there two separate rd numbers for these vases? 

For shape information I'm adding:

this one -  sold last year by Fieldings  sold as Thomas Webb, but also says made for 'Whitman (sic) & Roth'  and says it has an rd number on the base (not identified in the listing).  It  is a clear 'fishscale' design straight sided wide tube shape with a bulbous ring around the base above an indented foot. Gilded with birds.
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10035/lot-1da0ba96-d4c6-47b5-b416-a49000c2b44b

and another in pink - sold as : A small late 19th Century Thomas Webb & Sons vase for Whitman & Roth (sic) of ovoid form cased in pink
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/fieldings-auctioneers-ltd/catalogue-id-srfi10035/lot-8623e348-367e-4eb7-ac51-a49000c2c691

and yet another jug version
http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/120728

which appears to be very similar to this clear jug
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/c-1885-Reg-No-39086-HAMMERED-METAL-Wittmann-Roth-CRYSTAL-w-GOLD-Pitcher-/231784032960?hash=item35f767aac0:g:nQ4AAOSwhkRWbyEg

Where is the proof they were made by Webb's?
Judging by the number of examples I've found, whoever produced them was pretty prolific if this many have survived.

Incidentally - love the owl on a crescent moon logo for Wittmann and Roth - could it have been chosen as the Owl (too'wit' toowoo) for Witt, and moon for 'mann'?