Topic: Cut glass urn on a square foot - any info re its age, etc etc ?

[Scott13]

Hi,
It’s quite badly damaged, although the cut section looks relatively intact.

Shallow cut ( star pattern ? )

Quite a few seeds/bubbles in the glass ( which seems to have a greyish tint )

Wheel cut - can see marks left by the wheel.

Its rim looks as if it’s been ground and polished - restored at some stage ? ( not yesterday ! )

A lot of wear on its base.

Any help in establishing its identity/age appreciated.

I thought perhaps 18th - early 19th century ?

Thanks for looking

Scott

[Scott13]

Hi,
Sorry, forgot to include its dimensions.....

Wt - 1014gm
Ht - 17cm ( 6.75” )
Diam of bowl - 11cm (4.5” )
 

Scott

[Paul S.]

on the face of it Scott we're looking at, what are in my opinion, features that are usually associated with a date of c. 1740 - 50.          The cutting is untypical of later decoration where we would be more likely to see smaller diamonds and finer mitres etc. and made with the aid of more widely available power machinery.
These shallow wide mitres, are really all that has been used to create the design, and the base star with eight radial arms - each mitre cut with what appears to be two passes (the points end unequally with that method) - is in theory an indication of early to mid C18 work.      Simple and plain decoration.

With that undecorated band around the rim, it's just possible that this might have been a covered jar or smallish sweetmeat - it's even possible that a sterling silver collar might have decorated that plain rim.             Whether the rim has been cut down, or whether it left the workshop with that shape is impossible to say.          As we know, Continetal pieces had cut, polished and bevelled rims as standard on many pieces, but you may be correct that this one has been altered to accommodate some earlier damage.
The stem and foot are typical of earlier pieces that would have been made with a lid  -  and like so many items that consisted of two pieces - many of them end up losing their top parts.
You don't mention whether this is lead glass or not, but the 'grey' may well indicate this  - again, in theory it would be more likely to have been made using a lead glass.

Let's see what others think.             

Anyway, that's the theory - unless it was made to decieve, of course.

[Scott13]

Hi Paul
Many thanks for your comprehensive reply - most appreciated.
I’m pretty sure that it’s lead glass - if you tap it, it emits a high pitched ‘ ping ‘.
I liked the caveat “......unless it was made to deceive, of course “ - you were absolutely right to include it - one can never be sure. I certainly can’t.
As for the damage, I think I’m going to have to embrace the Japanese wabi-sabi philosophy   

Scott




Scott

[brucebanner]

Looks very early to me too, is the polishing dull in the grooves of the glass?, I had a very early tea caddy oval bowl which I was not sure about and sold now I know what it is it would have been the earliest piece of cut glass I had owned, interesting Paul I came across a lidded urn in Andy's decanter book he describes as a cordial decanter but there are no sizes given. I do not have the book to hand.

[Paul S.]

yes, you're correct in remembering that ..............    for those interested (and have the book) it's page 182.

Possibly for reasons of aesthetics - apparently cordials were consumed by upper class women more than most other drinks, unless you count 'mother's ruin'   -   there were a group of rare urn or shield shaped decanters, used for cordials, and which according to the book date to c. 1770 - 1800.
However, only one of the five examples shown in the book is in the form of a true lidded jar - in the sense that we might describe lidded sweetmeats etc.  -  so we must assume am exceptionally rare shape for a cordial decanter and even more so since it has a lid.
The book example is described as c. 1800, so in my opinion considerably later than Scott's piece shown here - and decorated far more profusely and elegantly as you might expect for something from much later in the Georgian period ................   cut with what appears to be diagonal running relief diamonds, cut narrow vertical flutes  around the rim and other assorted Regency period cutting.           Can't really see the underside of the square foot, but it may be a simple wide but shallow depression created by removal of the pontil scar.

This lidded feature is curious really, and in the absence of a lip or narrow neck to assist pouring, it rather begs the question as to how the booze might have been dispensed ...........  perhaps they used a toddy lifter.                Anyway, if you find one of these things it's probably worth an arm and a leg.

In the picture/ownership credits, this particular piece is shown as M - which when deciphered looks to indicate that at the time of publication or thereabouts it was in the possession of the well known antiques dealer Mallett & Son Antiques, Ltd., of Bond Street, London.          Why the absence of dimension is unclear  -  you might give them a call and ask if details are available  -  also you might discuss our other friendly question ................   what is their provenance/attribution for describing this lidded shape as a cordial decanter

[brucebanner]

I have a very similar piece like the one in Andy's book but I think it's late Victorian a car boot find from last year, will put a pick on in due course.

[The Glass Staircase]

Yeah I'd say Georgian too and it would have probably had a lid. It's very similar to a jar I picked up at auction for very little two weeks ago. I have it listed as George III on eBay, it was listed as Victorian in auction which it clearly isn't.

[Scott13]

Can’t see that the polishing is any different in the grooves, but that could Just be me.

I have however placed it next to a Stuart vase ( mark used c1930 - 1950 ) to show how different they are with regard to colour.

Scott

[Scott13]

Paul, I’ve just realised that the inner side of the band is slightly bevelled.
Hence the relatively narrow rim.
Not sure whether this makes any difference  - perhaps this was a feature common to all urns.

Also the outer surface of the band is actually decorated with a series of shallow cuts. I’m not sure what you’d call them - scallops ?
I’m not surprised you didn’t see them - my poor quality pics I’m afraid.
And of course I should have picked up on this earlier.
I can only offer preoccupation as an excuse !

I don’t think there’s anything else I’ve forgotten to mention.

Thanks for looking again 

Scott