It's an irony that the trade-marked name of peachblow - patented by Mt. Washington c. 1885, and licensed by them to several companies including T/Webb in the U.K. - doesn't in fact look anything like what we in the U.K. now generally think of as how this décor should appear, or come to that how the original Chinese vase appeared. The original product invented by Mt. Washington has an appearance that suggests it has more in common with Burmese than Mrs. Morgan's piece of shiny-surfaced crushed strawberry coloured Chinese ceramic.
Others, in the States, certainly T/Webb in the U.K. and apparently it seems some of the Bohemian factories, did make a surface décor that copied Mrs. Morgan's Chinese vase that started the late Victorian fashion for rose coloured/shaded glass.
I would agree - having looked again at the brown lower portions of Patrick's vase, that this pale toffee/caramel colouring is unusual for British pieces of peachblow, or come to that States manufacture, so comments here that Bohemian is a more likely candidate seems probable.
Azelismia's interesting comments are enlightening - to my untrained I had ignored the three layer construction - also the unusual lower colouring, and this button-shaped pontil - certainly looking at the first three of Patrick's original pix I'd have put money on this being heat sensitive - and no doubt lost my shirt.
I've been through Wilson's Vol. 1 on 'Mt. Washington Glass', in respect of peachblow, and as you'd expect there is very little comment about similar material from sources other than States companies. Wilson does however comment briefly regarding 'Foreign Competition' - agents offering British material (presumably the T/Webb look-a-like décor), another agent offering Bohemian although the maker is unnamed - and subsequent to these offers c. 1888, an agent by the name of I. Vogelsang & Sons was advertising "Peach blow imitations at one-fourth of the price of real Peach blow" - again the source of this material is omitted - but the name just possibly suggests Continental rather than States or British.
Currently available literature seems rather quiet on the subject of non heat-sensitive/imitation peach blow, but if anyone is aware of a source of information in the books please shout.
In view of the general opinion that this one isn't heat sensitive peach blow, then my comment that it will glow under u.v. is probably wrong since there was probably an absence of uranium in the batch - but you will find other uses Patrick for your torch - just think of all the U. glass you can now go out and find.
I take the point that this piece was an item of skilled manufacture - presumably the rose colour was picked up last of all, and the whole piece blown again to thin and stretch this top colour. It seems an irony that on the face of it there appears to have been a requirement for more skill and technical know how to make this look-a-like than chucking some U238
into the batch then simply re-striking the vase to achieve the strawberry.
Sorry, I know less than nothing as to whether Loetz/Lotz made such material.
In Charles Hajdamach's current British text book on C19 coloured art glass, there is no mention of faux Peach blow - only the real thing - and sadly I no longer have the Truitt's book on art nouveau Bohemian art glass or Gulliver's volume on British material from the same period, so unable to see what reference there is, if any, to peach blow look-a-like.
Regret this doesn't add anything of use or help regarding Patrick's vase, but just thought some of the related info. was a tad interesting.
Topic: Cameo style vase (Read 2625 times)
