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

[Paul S.]

thanks for the links m  -  very interesting.              Auctioneers aren't exempt from errors in attribution as we know, and suspect they make as many if not more than others, although Fieldings are probably better than most, and errors are perpetuated no doubt from one catalogue to the next, unless someone corrects them, loudly.           Ebay is particularly bad where you can see that one seller has copied an attribution or provenance from another - suppose you have to make some allowance if they don't specialize.

Glass designers are no less imaginative with their inventions than other areas of artistic craft, but not thinking here so much of Rd. 41925, which we are taking on trust as a cut pattern of fishscales, although the extent of all-over 'cutting' is so extreme that in some ways it looks almost unreal.

Thinking more of Rd. 39086 - the 'hammered' decoration.                Looking at the clear jug in the last of your links, I'm struck by some surface features when viewed a little closer.
Look at the appearance of the narrow non-relief channel that runs very neatly and clearly around the lower end of the handle  -  a fully gilded handle from T/Webb? -  sounds a bit tacky to me - despite being of shell form - although there is in fact a precedent in a loving cup decorated by Barbe.              This channel appears well defined and regular without a break - there aren't any hammered blobs that look to be partly hidden under the handle, so assume this decorative effect created after the handle applied         And look how exact and precise the gilding is on that lower part of the handle where it meets the jug.

Kevin's comments about the pattern overlapping the rim are valid - it does seem an unusual effect on something where the surface effect was mould made, possibly  - so does this suggest some type of patterned stencil or resist had been used to create the hammered effect, and this, for whatever reason, overlapped the rim?

I've looked through Woodward's 'Art Feat and Mystery', also the Thomas Webb Museum catalogue, but nothing there of relevance that I could see.         As you have more or less commented already, in the absence of any provenance then the various auction house attributions for pieces showing the hammered effect as relating to T/Webb should be treated as erroneous, unless proven otherwise, especially as the relevant Rd. No. is known to be the property of Wittmann & Roth.

very much looking forward to chilternhills (sorry, don't know name), letting us know if possible how the hammered surface decoration achieved - when you've received this very attractive vase.        Apart from not knowing the maker of course, the methodology of the design seems to be eluding us completely at the moment.

[Paul S.]

As expected, nothing in the way of additional information in either the Representations book, or the Register.
Not quite sure what the insect is - possibly a cicada - but not sure.........   certainly a passion for decorating with images of insects in the C19.
Suddenly realized that neither 39086 nor 41925 appear in Raymond Slack's list of Registration Nos. -  the reason appears that both (although I've seen the Register for 39086 only, but quite happy to believe that same applies to 41925), are CLASS IV, as can be seen in the attached picture. 
Lattimore doesn't breakdown the post 1884 Nos., so he's no help if you want details at item level.
So, have to assume the Jenny Thompson made a point of looking at the actual Registers, thus picking up on all Registrations whether CLASS III or IV, rather than looking simply at lists for CLASS III (glass) only.
Wonder where that vase is now??           

There is always some loss of definition/contrast when photographing these things, so apologies for lack of quality - but do folk agree there's a possibility that both the top and bottom rims might be metallic - they have an appearance of being a separate item from the glass.
In fact the glare seen in the pix is not my fault - the original image is in the form of a sepia photograph, and obviously the photographer appears to have been unable to avoid some amount of glare.

The Register repeats the wording we've seen already, regarding the Applicant being a 'Glass and China Manufacturers', although as will be seen from details of Rd. 41925, they are relegated to being Merchants only at a later date.
Regret there's no Kew image of the underside of the base, and since the original picture is a sepia photograph it's not possible to know if the piece was gilded in any way.

Won't speculate further regarding the method of manufacture of the 'hammered' effect, as hoping the op will be able to provide details when vase arrives.
Hope of some interest.

[Paul S.]

this is the other known Registration discussed above - Rd. 41925 dated 26th January 1886 - the surface pattern of which is described by Thompson (wording doubtless taken from the Kew Register), as 'pattern worked on body of glass to represent fish scales'.             A very good example is shown in m's link to the Fielding's auction listing - where it is attributed in error to Thomas Webb, despite the inclusion of the correct Registration No.  ........  http://fieldingsauctioneers.co.uk/lot/4696       forget now if there are links, above, to other examples of 41925.
Unfortunately, I didn't take a picture of the Register entry, but am sure it will be another CLASS IV item - will put this right on the next visit.
Apologies again, the original photograph comes with ready made glare about which I can do nothing - hope it doesn't disfigure the vase too much.

Fieldings describe the decoration as 'cut', but I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case  -  looking at the profile of their ovoid vase, I doubt that this pattern could be cut within the recesses of the shape, and it has a very moulded look.
Is it possible that the prototype design was a moulded effect, with the intention for the mass produced pieces to be cut??   I wouldn't have thought so.

Have included a single picture of a later Wittmann & Roth Registration  -  67040 dated 2nd February 1887 - where they are now shown as simply 'Glass & China Merchants' - but as can be seen, still knocking out CLASS IV Registrations. 

Coming back to the earlier Registration of 39086 - the 'Hammered effect' - I've just remembered that Fieldings said "A late 19th Century Thomas Webb & Sons jug manufactured for Whitman (sic) & Roth"  -  not something we're able to verify as far as I'm aware - perhaps we should ask them if they're able to help us on this attribution.

So now we need someone with an example of the 'fishscale' Registration 41925 to confirm whether the pattern is cut or moulded  - and looking forward to more information on Rd. 39086, hopefully, although none of this unfortunately resolves the matter of who made these designs.
Six more pix I think, so two will go over the next post.

[Paul S.]

and the last two pix.

[KevinH]

Interesting.

The Archives 41925 image clearly shows a thin raised rim at the top of the vase, with the fish scale design ceasing immediately below that rim. The other examples we have seen in the links do not (as far as I recall) have a defined rim at the lip of the items. Does it mean anything? Maybe not.

And it is also interesting that the Archives image shows a realistic fish tail effect at the base. Nice touch, if a little "over the top" maybe.

[Paul S.]

   -  Kevin - did you mean 41925?        Yes, I also noticed that top rim feature, and wondered if that was confirmation of some part of a moulding process

[KevinH]

Yes 41925 ... that's what it says. (Or did I cheat and change it with my Moderator hat on?)

[Paul S.]

of course, what we really need now is m's input  -  the lady is so comprehensive

[KevinH]

Serious point - the fish scale design on the Archives image shows four loops rather than the three seen on other items.

[Paul S.]

I've gone to bed