Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > British & Irish Glass

8" Transfer-Printed Handkerchief Vase

<< < (2/3) > >>

Pinkspoons:

--- Quote from: "DenCill" ---
But is this an opal glass? :shock: If so then this is very unusual and - dare I say it - rare?
--- End quote ---


It's definitely opal glass - the scratch/score doesn't cut through it, and there's the tiniest of tiny flakes missing from one of the tips, and it doesn't disturb the white either.

David E:
Update: adapted from mail to/from Nic

I'm theorising, but as this is flashed, it may date to when they decided to drop the intaglio model (Cut Pearl, 1957/58 ) and replace it with the silk-screen printed models. Chance never wasted anything, so it's entirely possible the unformed blanks were 'left-overs'!
 
So it could have been something they were trying out on a left-over piece of glass. It could also explain the 8" height, which is also unusual.

My only concern is whether the dates tally, assuming Candy Stripe followed after Cut Pearl, but there are so few examples of both it's very difficult to tell.

nigel benson:
Hi David,

I have a couple of questions.

Is this a quote or precis from a reference, or, part of your research into Chance?

"The posy vases (4" & 5" height) were made by cutting the glass to shape, silk-screen printing the flat glass and then 'slumped' naturally in a kiln at 700 degrees C with no manual intervention. The larger 7" and 8" handkerchief vases wouldn't slump naturally, so had to be prodded with a willow stick to the desired shape. Each one lovingly crafted by hand ... etc."

You see, I have a reference from an article by Lesley Jackson about the way Chance Fiesta pieces were made, but it doesn't talk about any hand work, so is that specific to handkerchief bowls?

Secondly, this made me start musing:
--- Quote ---Chance never wasted anything, so it's entirely possible the unformed blanks were 'left-overs'!

--- End quote ---


Although I would have assumed for such large scale production it is likely to be be tidier to bin any overs, I understand what you say about them never wasting anything - so am I way off beam in thinking it might just be the sheet glass left in stock before each "run", or, would they have kept any/all pre-cut pieces of glass for potential use? It's a strange thing to say a piece of sheet glass is a blank isn't it? - since we generally think of a three-dimensional item as a blank :shock:

On the other hand (thinking aloud as-it-were) if the pieces were already cut then surely the size would be standard, so maybe this is a size that was made specially? :?

Nigel

David E:
All information on these vases was gathered from reliable sources, namely:

Tony Cartwright: Chance Glass from 1959 to 1981, finishing as General Manager, before setting up Fiesta Glass Ltd. with...
Michael Joseph: Managing Director of Fiesta Glass Ltd, then Chairman.

Both are adamant that manual intervention was required on the larger vases and the process was described to me by both of them, independently.

It is inevitable they would cut a number of 'blanks' prior to producing the vases. Why there were any 'left-overs' of the flashed opal blanks (as confirmed by Tony in a recent e-mail) is not something I can answer, except to confirm they did exist.

The term 'blank' is commonly used to determine a pre-formed, or pre-engineered item. Plenty of industries use this term.

nigel benson:
Hi David,

Sorry, I wasn't questioning your use of the term "blank", merely commenting on how strange it was having to refer to a piece of sheet glass as such (whether flashed or not). Your use of the term was quite understood :)

Very interesting about the manual intervention when making the larger (handkerchief) vases, thank you.

Nigel

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page