Topic: Deception glass, georgian or victorian?

[lychap]

I picked this up recently , pretty sure its a deceptive glass but wonder as to its age.

The lower part of the bowl is solid glass and concealed by beehive ribbing while the upper portion has optic vertical ribs, think the stem is a baluster.

3 1/4" tall, the bowl diameter is 2 5/8" while the foot is 2". Has a faint pontil scar.

Any suggestions gratefully acceped 

[Paul S.]

hi  -  breaking my own resolution now...…………… sometimes not possible to resist temptation.

I think the folk here will want to see some additional pix, please - and regret I can't make out the beehive ribbing from this one photo alone, but would agree with your thoughts of baluster stem (as opposed to an inverted baluster).   
You may well be correct with the suggestion that this is a deception glass - and though I could be wrong, don't think it's a deception shape that's very common, and would be interested in your reasons for dating as Georgian or Victorian  -  again, from this one picture it's not possible to see the extent of solid glass at the base of the bowl.                             The bowl shape suggests a pan-topped sweetmeat, though some smaller drinking glasses shared something similar - champers for example.
Bowls from C18 were often given moulding - think gadrooning, and wrythen (sort of helical) gadrooning and moulded pedestal stems, all physical rather than optical.

Is this lead glass and what is the colour.           Feet can say more about a glass than you'd imagine - so need to see a good picture of the underside of the foot - with close up adequate to see the faint pontil scar.           Also what is the extent, if any, of wear on the underside of the foot and bowl rim.           Remember, feet tended to have more of a domed elevation in earlier glasses, and became flatter as the C19 wore on.

For whatever reasons - perhaps comfort on the lips possibly - many glasses from C18 had everted rims (outward) rather than cup shaped.

We're back to the old problem  -  copying, and it was done in vast amounts for the last 150 years.         Assume Bickerton is still the favoured standard tome for these things, and would recommend this if you don't have it already - but none of which is a substitute for going places and handling drinking glasses  -  provided you don't drop them.   

[lychap]

I'll try to get some better pics in the next few days

[Paul S.]

thanks  -  just to clarify ................  my mention of C18 dating may have been misleading - I wasn't in any way suggesting this glass was from that period - just making some comparisons in terms of usage of different shapes of glasses.           The probability of finding genuine C18/early C19 pieces, from the wild, decreases with each passing decade, which means that there is a far greater likelihood that this glass is of more recent manufacture, unfortunately  -  would be great if it was otherwise.

[lychap]

ok added 2 more pics, having difficulty getting a pic of the pontil scar but will keep trying

[lychap]

Sorry uploaded wrong files try again

[lychap]

 

The pontil scar is to faint for me to get a pic, I think it has been part polished out?

[Paul S.]

sure  -  in the absence of any pix showing the underside of the foot, then we take your word for it.            Digital cameras, rather than mobile phones, are far preferable for photographing glass  -  that's not to say you have used a mobile, it's just that I notice so many folk now use their phone rather than a camera.        Good lighting is essential - raking light is a good means of capturing difficult surfaces where small or shallow features need to be seen, and if reflected light rather than transmitted light is used then this will light up a surface and show small details.    As the name suggests, very low angle light, bounced off the subject, tends to create pool of almost mirror like light, on the glass, causing the small details to show as darker points.           The backgrounds to some of your pix are 'too busy' - plain dark backgrounds are preferable - it's not easy to get good shots of clear glass, but a plain ground will help rather than a tour of someone's furniture or back garden

Generally speaking, untreated snapped pontil scars ceased c. 1740 - 60, after which time the polished depression becomes the norm.     Unfortunately, not all glass makers were following the script, and the scar pops up every now and again for probably over a hundred years  -  often found on utility or tavern glasses or, of course, those pieces intended to look old or confuse, of which there were many c. 1920 - 30 when repro. styles were all the rage.

Would still like to hear in your own words why you consider this glass might be old - always good to hear the opinion of others  -  none of us is that good that we can't benefit from someone else's knowledge             Your subject heading of 'Georgian/Victorian?', covers a vast wedge of history - 1714 to 1901 - a total of six monarchs, during which time the manufacture of glass, shapes and styles changed massively.
Seeing our thoughts in writing helps not just others but ourselves too -  just talking about the evolution of glass is a great way to learn.
It's all too common to read descriptions - especially on the bay - where something is described as Georgian/Victorian - not only does it show the seller knows nothing about glass, but worse still they simply can't be bothered to investigate.

You might show your glass to a professional for an opinion - failing which it will likely remain not just anonymous but also undated.      Assume it came from the wild?          My opinion remains that this piece is most likely to be from somewhere in the last one hundred years rather than C18 or C19.

Hope you won't be offended by the foregoing - it's really intended to help and we all have to start somewhere, and most of us make mistakes along the way  -  remember, people who don't make mistakes don't usually make anything.

[lychap]

I think it is late Victorian but was looking for clarification.

[Paul S.]

you may well be correct  -  but we'd be interested to know why that particular suggestion               Sometimes an identical example can be found in one of the books, failing which it often comes down to some feature of the glass that helps to date.