Topic: Georgian fruit bowl with lemon squeezer foot for show

[brucebanner]

Only seen these in books but was lucky to find this one in an antiques centre today for 3 quid described as a Deco fruit bowl.

It measures 11 1/2 inches in diameter and 8 inches in height.

I'm guessing 1810-30 in date.

All the base corners are in good nick Paul.

Regards Chris.

[bOBA]

I have never seen such a thing before, a huge bit of Georgian glass.... luck plays a big role in condition of most glass. 1950's glass can appear brand new if carefully looked after.

Robert (bOBA)

[neilh]

There are a few examples in "American and European Pressed Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass" by Jane Shadel Spillman. For those with the book, yours are similar to items 14,16,17,18, typically described as Irish 1790-1810, footed bowl. On a couple the base matches yours and the dimensions match as well, but the decoration of the bowl is different.

It's my understanding the base is pressed glass with a cut bowl placed on top. I have read that the two parts might have been made by separate factories in some cases.

[Paul S.]

most of the books that discuss this type of table glass  -  boat vases, fruit bowls, standing bowls, depending on which author you favour  -  describe these moulded feet being made by the pinchers  ............... itinerant workers who appeared to specialize in making small moulded ancillary components of table glass/decanter stoppers etc.             G. Bernard Hughes comments.............  "It was from the hidden pinchers of Birmingham that the Stourbridge glassmen often obtained square feet with pedestal or domed insteps."       Makes you think of something similar to what we might imagine the division of labour to have been in the Bohemian family based cottage industry of the C19.
The word describes the act of pinching a gob of molten glass in a type of long-armed pliers - on the end of which was fixed the two-piece mould.

Certain types of cut decoration on many of these bowls was commonplace - squared diamonds containing hobnails alternating with eight point stars made with crossing mitre cuts - and rims were usually scalloped, with either small/fine or larger scallops as showing here - up market bowls had Van Dyke cut rims, and fan splits as shown here were fairly common.
The similarity of the bowl in the example in Phelps Warren is the limit of the sameness - the stem and foot are entirely different although the example in G. Bernard Hughes is very similar in most respects, including the lemon squeezer foot.

None of which contributes any conclusive proof as to whether this piece is period or a later copy  -  I find it hard to believe that a c. 1810 standing bowl would be waiting in an antiques centre just for Chris to spot  -  and the saying that  "if it looks too good to be true then it probably is" - comes to mind........  but then Chris is accustomed to me be cynical, pessimistic, and a doubting Thomas - so possibly he half expected me to discount this as a period piece.                     There are a great number of pairs of eyes that spend their lives scanning for the real thing, and combined with the apparent perfection of the foot, suggests caution when dating this piece .................   table glass was used as it was intended, and time and accident leave their marks.

C.H. reproduces pages from the London and Birmingham retailer Hill Ouston catalogue from the mid 1930s, and similar shaped standing bowls certainly figure in their repertoire, along with many other reproductions of patterns and designs from the age of exuberance.         Their catalogue was filled with designs for 'Reproduction Antique Glassware' including the classic Irish shapes of the turnover edge and the canoe shaped bowl".       C. 1900, Richardson also reproduced old designs from George III reign (1760 - 1820).
If only it were that easy to say that shape and cutting alone were all that was necessary to prove a piece was genuine period - unfortunately, it isn't.

Assessing the authenticity of allegedly old clear glass, on the screen alone, was never intended to be easy, and it isn't -  but all things considered regret this one doesn't do it for me Chris.          But - what a piece of glass  - something you can actually use for fruit or punch, or a float bowl, or vegetables at high dinner, or   oh, for £3 the list is endless.

By the way, why were you only guessing?   did you have your doubts?

[bOBA]

Paul,

I did have a little more confidence in possible Georgian pieces of glass until I read the paragraphs of Charles R. Hajdamach recently, in his 20th century Glass volume, relating to the strange activities of Mrs Elizabeth Graydon-Stannus. By his account, she seems to have eccentrically produced near copies of many known Georgian pieces and it is even suggested she added cuts to old pieces as well, selling them in both cases, side by side, for many years, infuriating some of her peers! Her input must be extremely difficult to account for.

Robert (bOBA)

[brucebanner]

Its the real thing, i have enough old glass now to know the differences, the base is worn almost through and the bowl is heavily worn internally, it looks feels and sounds right.

I also have a reasonably reliable witness to my £3 purchase (thank god), sometimes I just can not believe what's in these places or charity shops its the third early 19th century piece i have found in a week, I have had a lucky run recently.


After reading Hughes earlier he suggests the straight stem is earlier 1790 ish.

[Paul S.]

Mrs. Graydon-Stannus' reasons for reproducing earlier styles and passing them off as genuine period glass may be difficult to understand now, but she was very keen to make sure her wares were accurate copies, as Robert says - and she wasn't alone in reproducing glass designs from the Georgian period.             It's because there have been many copies produced since the end of the Victorian period that it really is now difficult to be sure of genuine pieces, and looking at the screen alone isn't in my opinion adequate to be confident.       
So far in the course of this thread we have not discussed some of the other features that might be more likely to help in determining the genuineness or otherwise of Chris' standing bowl - the shape and cutting are probably the least helpful.
I see that C.H. also castigated some of the States copyists for reproducing much material from the ABP period, so we're not alone in the U.K. with this repro headache.

We assume this is high quality lead glass  -  what is the colour - what is the cutting like and do wheel marks remain within the mitres, or have these been removed.

Glass that might be one hundred plus years old and used often, will show much wear under the foot  -  but perhaps it's my feelings about human nature that doesn't do it for me here  -  the perfect foot, and the fact that no one else in an antiques centre spotted this as a mis-described bowl, is still something I find difficult to undertstand.

This area of collecting is a minefield for the unwary, but ultimately if Chris feels he is right then we'll say no more

[brucebanner]

This was in the antique centre next door £10 look at page 277 British glass, lots of base wear, rough pontil and a kicked up base and these three Vic decanters 1850's were in a charity shop on Tuesday £20 (i have the till receipt) for the three in mint condition apart from a couple of micro chips to one stopper.

Only one of the decanters has a numbered bottle and stopper which i thought was odd, it must mean something.

[glassobsessed]

Given the very large quantity of glass Chris buys, now and again the odd gem is bound to crop up.

Found this bit of antique Salviati in a charity shop this week, a small opalescent vase (with a T shaped crack behind one of the prunts) at a quid I could not leave it behind.

John

[Paul S.]

nice find John   -  I found a small wine glass of his some years back in Brighton, for a similar amount, but ................   I'm not sure we are working on a level playing field by comparing Salviati with George III glass, though your point that we all find bargains, occasionally, is not lost on me.              The latter has been copied ad infinitum for over one hundred years, whereas I don't recall seeing shed loads of Salviati copies on my travels  ..............  but put me right if I'm wrong ...................   mind you, I probably wouldn't know the difference between a Salviati copy and a No. 9 bus - although I've yet to see an opalescent bus                    
But a comparison is perhaps not what you were making - just showing us your bargain

I'd suggest that the short answer is that looking at screen images of clear glass that is alleged to be two hundred years old, or more, is somewhat pointless since the critically defining features for such pieces don't manifest themselves on a pc screen.         As has been said by many people over the years  -  what helps us to understand the difference between the genuinely old and something more recent is often difficult to put into words - that indefinable something that can only be acquired by age, and understood by experience.   

Mid C19 decanters are possibly the most common older glass item that can be found  -  and again I lose sleep at nights in view of the masses of copies that are around.          Here again I would refer to Andy McConnell's Decanter book - pp. 490 - 496, where he discusses reproductions and fakes - and quoting Mr. McConnell he writes  .......................  "Most British fine glassworks made extensive ranges of 'Georgian' reproduction wares between 1900 and 1939."            He goes on to name Whitefriars, Walsh and E. & L. as makers of such wares, and reproduces b. & w. copies of pages from said company catalogues, together with further information on Bristol blue and amethyst coloured wares that originated with Hill-Ouston and their American affiliate Skinner-Hill.                 Between them - during the 1930s - they appear to have flooded both sides of the pond with masses of repro. designs and shapes from the late C18 and early C19, although it has to be said that the aforementioned manufacturers didn't attempt to deceive.
Oh, and guess who's name crops up again as being complicit in this less than honest business of making and selling fraudulently aged decanters.....      Mrs. Graydon Stannus who appears to have set out to deceive, deliberately, with her copies of some Irish designs. 
Andy's book is a must for many reasons, but certainly this particular entry is probably worth the money on its own  -  I understand the author is hoping to get the second edition out later this year  -  whatever you do don't miss it this time -  the first edition became vastly overpriced due to demand, and its cost on the second hand market meant that it became out of reach to many.       It's a truly magnificent volume for all who are interested in glass.

For what it's worth Chris, my opinion is that ninety odd per cent of the time that you find a decanter with matching Nos., then it will be from the C20 - mostly it wasn't a feature of the Victorian period.