Topic: charity shop finds.

[catshome]

Is it uranium glass?  There looks to be a glow on the rim in the top pic.  And can you feel the ribs on the inside or outside?

[Paul S.]

from the first post  ………   "it doesn't respond to u.v."     ..............   guaranteed zero response to u.v., unfortunately.

The ribs can be felt internally, but not outside, which I'd assumed indicated a dip mould  -  the idea being that the gather was dumped into the mould - blown slightly to pick up the features of the mould (horizontal or vertical)  -  removed from the mould and then blown to full size.     IIRC this causes the moulded features to decrease physically, but leaves them more noticeable inside the piece than outside.         Issues with that suggestion are that dip moulding in theory applies only to straight sided pieces or those where the moulding is required on the lower portions only  -  since you can't remove irregular shaped glass from a correspondingly irregular shaped mould.          But this could be a load of waffle  -  I do know there are others here who should know vastly more than me about such moulds.             This process would account for the lack of pontil scar/depression on the base, since with dip moulds there is no need for a rod on the rear end  -  in fact it's the top end that is attached to the blowing iron, hence the need to grind/polish the top rim when cold.       Unfortunately, this can give rise to  the flea bites you see here as the rim edges are thin and fragile  -  this can be avoided to some extent by bevelling the edges of the rim to provide some additional strength  -  occasionally such edges are folded over.           I seem to recall that Continental drinking glasses, in particular, are often cut and polished at the rim - likewise they folded the feet and rims to strengthen these edges  -  British houses seem to have avoided such habits and possibly it's an historic thing - the U.K. lead glass was thicker and tougher than 'crystallo non-lead glass, which was finer and more delicate.
Old habits die hard I suppose.


 

[Lustrousstone]

Moulds can be opened... and a lot of glass is blown from the top, cut off and then transfered to a pontil rod for finishing of the top...
And the ribs are removed from the outside by blowing and then doing that smoothing with newspaper in the hand thing

[Paul S.]

thanks Christine  -  I knew there would be someone who had a lot more information about such moulds.

[flying free]

https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,33260.msg180809.html#msg180809

more information there on the turquoise one I said I thought was Nazeing.  Nigel has explained.

And a little bit here on the bubble vases from Stevens and Williams (although not exactly the same shape (or perhaps it's just the dimensions) as yours.
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,63211.msg354697.html#msg354697

m

[Anne]

as I made a cods of the first effort on this Caithness piece - here it is again.               The darker image used led lighting, and the accurate one was fluorescent strip - amazing difference.    Apologies again Anne.

No apologies needed Paul. 

I've added pics of my 2 Whispers bowl by Caithness plus the one that went to someone else (which was apricot not azure, now I've found the photo of it!) The two I still have are a rose and what seems to be a paler apricot - certainly not as deep coloured as my earlier one.

[Paul S.]

Anne -  thanks for posting pix of your bowls - have to say I wasn't aware of this shape, but they're attractive -  I must look out for them.

thanks m for taking the time to post your thoughts and links.              So, what am I supposed to infer from your information  -  that my bubbled amber/gold vase is, or isn't Murray  -  sorry to seem thick, but I've been absent from glass for some while and I probably wasn't too au fait on 'pre WW II' art glass in the first place.      Would be grateful if you are able to clarify for me, even if just a subjective slant.   -  thanks

Re the Nazeing  -  as mentioned, I see their pieces (or at least what I always believe to be theirs) several times a year in charity shops, and they stand out noticeably, and I don't seem to have a difficult with provenance  -  perhaps it's the colourways that convince me, but perhaps I have in fact been getting the id wrong all this time.               IMHO, Nazeing is quite distinctive, and whilst I stand to be corrected, I've not been aware of any of them being from other makers.

But - as you and I know, we can't keep everything we find, so in the end they all go which means that I've nothing in the flesh with which to compare current finds  -  however, IMHO I don't have a problem with id for this particular piece. 

[flying free]

hi Paul
In the link I gave, amongst all the information on the Elwell find, Nigel says this of the piece he shows ( same decor and colourway as the pieces you and I have I think):

'The piece shown is Elwell (in all probability made by Nazeing) rather than what we know as Nazeing, and came from the Elwell find. '

On that link Nigel explains in detail why some pieces might be known as 'Elwell - probably Nazeing for Elwell', rather than 'Nazeing'.

[Paul S.]

thanks m  -   it's obvious to some of us, but worth mentioning for others who may be new to C20 glass, that Elwell was a dealer/wholesaler glass merchant, and not a maker of anything.           Nigel's explanation sounds a tad convoluted, but I'm not questioning his knowledge in any way.
I might just keep these 'Nazeing' pieces for future reference  -  not that they come my way very often.

thanks again.

[catshome]

Hi Paul.  Just spotted what appears to be your green optic barrel vase in the middle of #42 on this link.

https://www.ysartglass.com/Otherglass/Nazeing/NazeingG04.htm

There appears to be an amber version in #73.

I was reading up on the Elwell find.  Unfortunately, it states that not all pieces on the page are Nazeing, but doesn't say which ones, or name any other makers. 

So.......probably not much help to you at all really.  It's the thought that counts 😹