Topic: Georgian fruit bowl with lemon squeezer foot for show

[brucebanner]

Ok, if these decanters were made in mass in the hundreds of thousands where are they all?, as with the Georgian reproductions, where are they all?.

I have kept a few 30's decanters, this one was floating around on my ebay site for six months, (anything over that gets recycled), it was too good to recharity. The reproductions you go on about (which i have seen very few of) are always more crystal clear and have more well defined accurate cutting.

Have you got any copies to show Paul as a comparison?.

Very nice glass John.

[Paul S.]

have to say I now possess almost no glass at all  -  over a period of several years it almost all went back to the charity shops - my take on re-cycling            Collecting becomes simply possession in the end, and having filled several garden sheds and with glass in almost every room in the house, something had to give, and I consider that I probably learned about as much as my brain can accommodate.            I might have sold it but probably not prepared for the hassle involved.

As to the question 'where are all the repro pieces'  -  my opinion is that there are a lot of collectors who own glass which they consider to be older than it actually is  ...............   you only have to look at the sales pitch being made on ebay and related sites to see that there are a lot of private dealers selling glass that isn't as described.
The word Georgian appears to be used for much that isn't from that period.      Expression such as  "could be Georgian or Victorian - you make up your own mind", was one that I thought was comical, but not the sort of phrase that should have a legitimate place in the world of glass selling. Ultimately, with the type of glass we're speaking of, and if we want to be precise and truthful, then it's obvious that without a label and/or backstamp, then the accuracy with which we describe such pieces comes down to our experience and knowledge, and there are a lot of people who lack both.              Just to repeat again, it's probably unrealistic to expect reliable comments for 'difficult' glass based on screen images only.           I hope you have been lucky with this piece, but for your success there might be a dozen others who will buy based on simple criteria and find their fingers burned.

It's disappointing to visit antiques centres - or at least those near me - and see the sort of glass being palmed off as antique when obviously it's not.

[brucebanner]

After reading R Wilkinson again he states his brother invented acid glass treatment in 1922 and by about 1924 it was widely used in Stourbridge. My Webb Corbett one is not acid finished it's polished so I'm wondering if the marks are earlier than on sites like great glass that give it a date of between 1930-47.

It's not the only mark I have wondered about by the way.

[Paul S.]

tragically, as you'll know, his brother paid with his life at the age of only 30 for that invention/discovery  -  indirectly from pneumonia caused by the lung damage from the acid fumes   -  and as Ivo used to say  -  have nothing to do with acid, and stay well away.

Due to the rather obvious difficulties of knowing exactly when some backstamps started and ended, most authors tend to copy earlier statements as to the period of their usage - I think Bernard Cavalot used to say that some caution is needed when attempting to define the years of their use.
Am sure you're right insofar as many of them had life spans different to that mentioned in the books, but probably now impossible to be certain of.

[cagney]

Vase with pressed foot c. 1820. Although American in origin, certainly in the English tradition. Bought by me for $30.00 at an "antique show". Consigned by me to Jeffery S. Evans Auctions and sold for $3500.00+in 2010.You may go to his site and search past auctions and see the exact piece and price realized. It does happen.

  A note on "charity shops" or "thrift stores " as we call them in the USA. My first full time job as a teenager was working in such a store for a year or so.Have been an avid patron of such places ever since. Eventually any and everything of a reasonable size will be donated and be put on the " floor " if it meets their criteria as a salable object.Usually anything of good quality and reasonable condition/price will not last long on the floor. Someone will recognize it an buy it. If you happen to patronize a shop that does not get many knowledgable people in your field, odds are you are going to be that person to recognize that piece and buy it.

[Paul S.]

hi - great piece and I think we'll all be sending our glass to you for future sales                    I don't think any of us would doubt the all too rare occurrence of serendipity  -  but the essence of this one Cagney is whether or not the piece in question is c. 1800.            If you have the time, would appreciate your input please and reasons for assessment based on the screen image alone. 

[brucebanner]

I think you would have to hold something to be 100% and why the huge price drop? A good friend picked up a 1820's decanter recently only to be attributed as French 1930's it had everything marked as an old piece age wear the right colour the right shape and cutting it looked perfect even years of internal staining.

[cagney]

Paul,
 Serendipitous for sure. Basing an assessment on the images alone would probably be a 50/50 proposition at best. I would increase those numbers to 75/25 by answering 3 basic questions.
Are there other similar documented pieces? i.e. same number of scallops in the base,etc.
 Waviness in the glass foot as probably made in a hand press?
Is the bowl attached to the stem by a wafer?

The almost exact piece is pictured in Jane S.Spillmans book " American And European Pressed Glass in The Corning Museum of Glass "
The cutting is a bit different, but very similar. Large diamonds are starred throughout, no alternating cubes, and the the " crows foot "cut band is above the main design.Dimensions are given as  H.21cm  L. "bowl" 26cm

I see o reason to question Brucebanners assessment of the glass itself. He has probably asked himself what makes it right for the period.
Of course, he should also ask himself what makes it wrong.

[Paul S.]

thanks Cagney - I think Chris is probably happy with the date he has settled on, but you're right of course insofar as screen images alone are inadequate, usually, when it comes to provenance for clear, older unmarked glass.               There are many documented and photographed pieces, very similar in shape, size, cutting etc. to the bowl shown here  -  it's a generically well known type of table glass, and we don't have a problem with the obvious features.                However, as you will know only too well from experiences your side of the pond, copies of historic shapes have been a problem in recent decades, and in the U.K. this has been a headache for us for a long time.               I like the 'crows foot' expression for the fan splits

As a matter of curiosity Cagney, why does Jane Spillman include a similar 'cut' fruit bowl in what I had assumed was a book devoted to 'American and European Pressed Glass'?

[cagney]

Paul,
I can only assume because these bases are some the earliest pressed glass. Of the seven footed bowls shown, 6 have cut bowls, 1 is mold blown. Of the 4 salts shown all have cut bowls. Of the 5 goblets shown 3 have cut flutes on the bowl. Two pairs of candlesticks are shown both blown and cut above the pressed base. All attributed to England or Ireland. all but 3 examples ca.1790-1810. Seems to have been a thing.