Topic: Obsidian? glass black paperweight with knop and gilded band

[flying free]

My comments about dating assume of course, that the paperweights were from a similar era, given that the two of the three malachite examples I've seen have labels which would date them possibly to around the era of 1870'ish and that two of them were being sold together, a malachite and black one with gilded bands.  That is an assumption.
The green malachite versions are sold as being made of pottery.
As is this brown marbled version here
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ANTIQUE-ENAMELED-DESK-PAPERWEIGHT-PERRY-Co-PEN-COMPANY-C-1874-/161863342313

I honestly do not think mine is pottery.

Neither mine, nor Ross's nor the black example being sold by the same seller as the un-labelled malachite example, are labelled, but two of them have an enamelled green number 161 on the base.
Enamelled numbers in coral red enamel have been seen on old glass bottles dating to 19th century and which came from All Souls College Oxford.

m

[LesBeatiques]

Heres are a couple other example that might help you:

http://www.xupes.com/Antiques-Fine-Art/Product-Details/2972/POTTERY-ENAMELLED-PAPERWEIGHT/Rare-Antique-Pottery-Black-Enamelled-Paperweight-Early-19th-C.html

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Black-Gilt-Finial-Button-Knob-Squat-Carved-Stone-Paperweight-/351872246536?hash=item51ed386308:g:fiUAAOSwAuZX6enh#viTabs_0

It is still my opinion that these are stoneware. The glaze has been wiped from the base (prior to firing) showing the reddish hue of the clay. The first example illustrates this well. If you look at the image of the base you can see the wipe marks where the glaze wasn't fully cleaned off and the wear is heavier on the raised portion of the foot showing the red clay more clearly.

Eric

[flying free]

yup I can see exactly what you mean. And the top one (sold by Xupes) is one I have referenced previously on this thread or on the other thread from Ross.
I can only think that mine is not pottery and must be different??
That second one you referenced  also has the number 161 on it in green doesn't it? (says it is just over 3 1/2"diameter 2" height to top of knop)
I wonder where they are from?

Mine has nothing enamelled on it and has no evidence of anything. And has a very neat striped base under what appears to be a dark glaze or is indeed glass. Mine is also bigger than either of the two in those links at over 4 1/8" diameter and about 2 1/4" to top of knop.

I'm thinking I'm going to have to break mine to see what it's made from - I can't stand the suspense.  I'll be a bit miffed if it's glass but hey ho.

Just adding (I know this addition is not glass, but just in case, and this one has a cream glazed base which might be what the malachite versions of these has) this map one was from James Macintyre & Co
https://www.georgeglazer.com/maps/asia/centralafrica.html

James Macintyre did make agate like or marbelised(?) glazed pieces,but they probably all did at some point depending on when it was 'fashionable'.



m

[flying free]

ink well and stand in black something (pottery but says glass?) numbered on the base in a pale green enamel looks like '850'
http://www.french-treasures.net/Glassware_184/Elegant-Inkwell-Black-Glass-Gold-Enameled-1890_6040.html

'Elegant inkwell in black glass and gold enameled with bronze hinge made during the 1890's. Perfect condition. It's numbered on the bottom. 5 5/8" by side 4 7/8" high.'

No idea if it is glass or not - looks to me as though it has three pin marks on the base.

m   

[flying free]

I've bought one like this
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Black-Gilt-Finial-Button-Knob-Squat-Carved-Stone-Paperweight-/351872246536?hash=item51ed386308:g:fiUAAOSwAuZX6enh#viTabs_0
That also has the enamelled number 161 on the base.

My original piece  is made much more finely made than the one I've just bought.

The new one is very matt on the base, slightly concave, shows a black swirl pattern over what appears to indeed be a red pottery of some sort, and can be scratched fairly easily. 

I can only assume that my old one was just made somewhere else, much better refined and also has some kind of glaze over the base of it which make it feel slightly sheeny, very smooth and very glassy in texture and cannot be scratched easily.  The base of the original is also completely flat, not concave at all.

I don't need to break the new one to believe it is pottery of some sort.
I will have to accept that the original is also pottery of some sort.

The new one would not work as a slick-stone or sleek-stone because of the concave base.  The old one would because it is extremely flat and heavy on the base,  but I think the design of it and the new one, would be extremely difficult to use having tried it on some silk.

I am not convinced that the black glass piece in the Corning with a short knop is a linen smoother.
I think it might be a paperweight?
http://www.cmog.org/artwork/linen-smoother
and
I'm not convinced this is a linen smoother either - it would be very hard to use with such a short knop and the way the knop is applied with a slim 'attachment' of glass to the base,makes me think it was applied as a knop, not as as taller handle which has broken off?
http://oldsouthjerseyglass.com/product_details/NTA=

But that's just my opinion.

This shows one with a taller handle where you can see the strength of the attachment of the handle
http://www.hecklerauction.com/auctions/98/view/?lot=95&view=2
http://www.hecklerauction.com/auctions/98/view/?lot=95
 

[KevinH]

The second item that you say might not be a linen smoother very probably has a broken (originally multi-lobed) handle that has been flat polished to the top to remove dangerous projections.

[flying free]

That is possible and I did consider that.  However I also looked at the way the knop was attached to the actual body of the piece and it is completely different to the few others I've been able to find.  They all have the handle attached in a very sturdy way to the body with some of the glass from the body appearing to be drawn up to surround the handle to make it more sturday.  This one looks as though the knop is slimmer at the point it attaches to the body - as though it was created as a knop rather than a tall sturdy handle which one would be using to push the slickstone with. 
The photos on both are not good profile photos so it is of course possible that I am completely wrong -
This is one which doesn't have the sturdy attachment at the base of the join.  Different shape to the body as it is curved as are others I've found, whereas that South Jersey one was round and flat to the base and sides and appeared to have a slim attachment to the knop.

http://www.hecklerauction.com/auctions/99/view/?lot=97&view=2

Also people probably know this but I didn't, I came across a number of 'glass muller' pieces which are used for grinding pigments. 
Very interesting to see their shape.
I mention this because  I've bought an antique black glass slick-stone or sleek-stone with handle.  It's not arrived yet so I can't look at it properly as terrible photos of it - I came across these glass mullers whilst researching it as well as the flat paperweight shape of this thread - one to look at
http://intaglioprintmaker.com/shop/glass-muller-10cm
and another one here

http://www.art-boards.com/Large%20Sized%20Glass%20Mullers..htm

And likewise, I am unsure about whether the four shown here are actually linen smoothers:
http://www.whimsey.org/tools.htm

m

m

[flying free]

This is an article from the Tate about artists using glass mullers to grind pigments.
Very interesting, as well as the glass muller they picture, which is similar in shape to my first paperweight, i.e. squat round bun with fat knop on top, and a completely flat base (describing just in case the link fails at some point)

In general if you look at other glass mullers I am not convinced that the items shown as the four glass linen smoothers on the Whimsey's page are glass linen smoothers at all.  (The mullers look a bit like a pestle sometimes with thicker, shorter handle or sometimes longer similar handles/stems/hand grips to a pestle,  but have a wider circular base that is flat. Linen smoothers as far as I can see, from any era, appear to have a curved bun shape, and the surface used for smoothing is completely curved up all around.)
I think it is possible those 4 shown on the Whimsey's link  are all glass mullers or 3 of them are and the squat one is a paperweight perhaps?

http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/ophelia/materials-and-techniques/ready-made-paint-and-medium

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=antique+glass+paint+muller+grind&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=638&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBz46B5dfPAhWIDsAKHa3vBsAQ_AUIBygC



I don't know whether it is conceivable that they ever used pottery grinders to grind their pigments.  But certainly the shape of my black 'paperweight' original item with the glazed very flat base, would do a good job, if it doesn't turn out to have been a paperweight (which I suspect it is).
However, the one I've just bought would not. It is not fully glazed on the base and the base is concave anyway.

Examples of non glass paint mullers below -

This article from the Market Lavington museum shows an antique wooden paint muller:

https://marketlavingtonmuseum.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/a-paint-muller/

See also these paintings to show the grinding of pigments
http://www.johannesvermeer.info/verm/house/hz-verftafel-eng.htm

This is one sold by Wooley and Wallis recently in treen with a bloodstone base apparently
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/woolley-and-wallis/catalogue-id-srwo10120/lot-afe42178-0523-4075-b096-a67c00c3e717


m

[flying free]

Of the two I was questioning, specifically the pale blue one, it might have had a handle that's been cut off, but could it have had a bowl attached to it that has broken and been cut off? - I'm just curious because of the shape of the round base of it, i.e. it's not curved up at all and also because of the slender way the knop is attached to the round base.
http://www.historicalglass.com/node?page=22#

It's nothing to do with me, but I'm trying to work out which items are valid for comparison to try and date mine (if it arrives in one piece or at all), and which are perhaps not.
m