Topic: Possibly Regency wineglass? (Posted for Martyn1)

[Martyn1]

Cheers Paul.

I have asked Anne if she wouldn't mind putting another on for me.  I think that it may be a Regency glass.  I'm posting this one rather than the one I mentioned earlier as it is more interesting. I will have to get my pc up and running which I don't currently have access to. I will look up that software that you suggested.  Enjoy your snack

[Anne]

Another wine glass posted for Martyn who is still having issues posting from his phone...

I've been told that this is probably Regency.
It is 10cm high
Bowl opening 5.2cm
Foot 6.5cm
Polished pontil.
It has blaze, lens and slice cutting.
I was given a probable date of c1820  - 1840.
Would this date seem about right?

[Paul S.]

for those who might not know  -  technically, and correctly, the 'Regency' was 1811 - 1820, when the Regent ceased being Prince Regent and became George IV - but most collectors probably view the period as being longer than this, so perhaps 1800 to 1830 is more appropriate.
Look forward to seeing your glass Martyn, and of course your reasons as to why it qualifies as Regency

[Martyn1]

Thank you Paul

I'm thinking c 1820 - 1840 ( Regency or early Victorian) mainly because of the style and cutting but I will have to see what others think.

[Ekimp]

In McConnell’s, The Decanter (again), he says ‘...between 1790 and 1830, produced what is broadly termed the Regency style.’ He goes on to talk about Regency glassware evolving through that period in three phases.

[Paul S.]

thanks  -  would suggest these comments - mine included - should have been posted on the thread for the glass in question.       So, according to suggestions so far we are apparently looking at anything from 1790 to 1840 ……………………    anyone care to add to that 

Anne (Mod.) - sorry to be a pain Anne  -  any chance you might move these 'Regency' comments to Martyn's post re his glass which he suggests is from that period.     Many thanks.

[Ekimp]

Hello again, I prefer this glass to the red one

With regard to the cutting. In the slim book Glass Tumblers 1700-1900 by John Brooks, he describes the change in style of cutting at the beginning of the 19th century to deeper designs (including printies and blazes). By illustration he shows a tumbler on page 12 that, apart from the fact it’s a tumbler, has cutting looking very similar to that on your glass. “Cut vertical blazes over a row of ‘printies’ and a band of flat squared off panels”. The tumbler is inscribed to commemorate a birth in 1831. He says the flat squared off panels “cut square at the top to produce a continuous line around the body” were a particular feature associated with the Regency period. I should think his comments would apply equally to stemware, so from a style of cutting point of view your suggested dates look about right.

The foot is a larger diameter than the rim and it looks like the glass might even have a slightly grey tone, if there’s a fair bit of wear, then in my opinion - for what it’s worth - your dates are about right. I am happy to be educated otherwise, as always.

[Martyn1]

Many thanks EKimp

It is a nicely made glass.  I also have another similarly cut glass with a bucket bowl with annulated collar (I think that is what you call it) under the bowl  which I suspect is of a similar date. These were charity shop finds some time back

[Anne]

Sorted Paul, thanks for the suggestion. 

[Paul S.]

thanks Anne

That was well spotted finding the similarly cut tumbler in Brooks booklet, and in the absence of anything to the contrary, I think we could go with that date of 1831  -  I use his booklet when discussing tumblers but am sure I wouldn't have looked on this occasion.
The foot diameter being wider than the bowl rim, is used often as an indicator of age, but not sure what we should read into this with this glass, but it's a good piece.

Some years back, Barrie Skelcher did a couple of books solely on uranium glass (Schiffer publications) and they're well worth having if that stuff floats your boat.              He was a physicist first (and a very clever one), and a collector of uranium glass second, and the fact that his glass research was buried in just these two books, probably meant that his thoughts on other aspects of glass manufacture didn't always get the airing they deserved.
In 'The Big Book of Vaseline Glass' (2002) - and amongst discussions on a variety of glass hallmarks  -  he goes into some depth as to "When Was It Made", and subjects such as The Gadget, Making the Foot, plus how to separate the several types of feet  -  hand shaped - blown and molded feet -  are examined.       
One of the things he dismisses, is Wilkinson's assertion that the gadget goes back as far as c. 1830, and says  " ............….  an article made using a gadget would not be earlier than 1870".           He does explain in some detail the reasons for this adjustment of the date, but too long to relate here.
I'd forgotten Skelcher's comments re the foot, so will have a look later today to see if his thoughts offer any insight regarding the foot on this piece - it may not of course.

So  -  do we consider this suggested dated of 1831 qualifies this glass as 'Regency'