Topic: Art Nouveau patch stand from Paul Kettle collection

[chopin-liszt]

It was for ease of carrying and transport that Monart made the miniatures. Not everybody could just get a car out and jump into it in the '30s.
Feet, bicycles and horse drawn carts were more the norm.
I could fit three cherries on my little "dipped" surface thing. I've got it out and beside me so I know what size we're talking about.

[chilternhills]

Better pictures were requested. I hope these are suitable.

Anton

[flying free]

I think they just need to be in focus against a normal white background with daylight to be honest    I am wearing my glasses so it's not me

Do the black background pics show an engraved all over pattern on the glass?

The other Hugo Maisey Webb Corbett enamelled pieces I've found seem to have a gilded rim and foot.

[chilternhills]

It is hard to get everything perfectly in focus on a curved bowl. A phone camera doesn't do depth of field very well. Sorry, but this is the best I can do. The pattern is just an artifact of the background and is not on the glass.  There are remnants of a gilded rim. The foot has no gilding.

[flying free]

ok, just had a look in the book and there isn't a direct match.

The thickness of the foot and no gilding does not appear to be the same as other Webb Corbett Hugo Masey pieces to me (well the ones in the book and online) as they appear to have a finer foot and gilded finish around the foot (one piece does not have a gilded rim).  However, my gut says that's where I'd be looking as the enamelling does remind me of Hugo Masey enamelling.

The book has lots of Stuart enamelled pieces but also says 'All Stuart enamelled glass is marked with the Stuart name.'. Source Charles Hajdamach  20th Century British Glass page 118 Plate 230

[chilternhills]

Thanks for your comments. Re: the finer foot in other examples. Remember this glass is a miniature. Proportionately the foot would need to be thicker, otherwise it could be too thin and fragile. I too have looked around the Internet and found similar Hugo Masey enamelled stemware, including with cherries, but nothing exactly the same.

[flying free]

yes probably agree the thickness of the foot may depend on how small the piece is. And actually I have S&W small pieces that do differ in thickness of foot, whether because different glassblower or maybe different era, or just .. y'know ... because.

Here is a piece from Keith by Hugo Masey.  Does yours look as though it might have had an enamelled ring around the top of the foot?  I though it might have and had worn off from one of your photos, so this piece caught my eye (unfortunately a dark photo but maybe Keith could do another against a white background in daylight   ):
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,56428.msg319887.html#msg319887

I like the enamelling technique and resultant effect more on yours than on any of the Stuart pieces.  It has a transparency and 3d effect that's really pretty.
Maybe because it's so small and enlarged in pics perhaps.  But it's really lovely.

[chilternhills]

I have to correct myself concerning gilding on the foot. There is, in fact, very faint remnants of gilding on the upper side, just at the edge of the foot. It appears as two very thin lines of gilding, but might have started out as a thicker, single band of gilding that has worn away. In the correct light I can see the glint of gold. There is no enamelling on the foot I can detect.

[chilternhills]

Actually, if you look carefully at my second 'improved' picture above, the two thin lines of gilding can be seen.

[flying free]

yes that's what I thought I could see in your pics.