Topic: Bubbly Glass bowl —Arculus & Co ? Id help please. ID = Stevens & Williams

[flying free]

I think it's a feature of the particular era they were made/style to be honest.I have a pink bubbly vase that I believe  is in the same range .  It still has a large polished pontil mark but has a peculiar orangey clear casing to it.  It's markedly thicker and less refined than any of my Stevens and Williams 'alabaster' range pieces - which also have the large polished pontil mark despite their small size.  I just think it's a style and design feature of this more 'rustic' thirties cloudy/bubbly range.  My S&W Caerleon vase is equally 'rustic' in design.

[Ekimp]

That’s interesting, thanks. I can understand them doing less refined as a style, such as thicker glass or less complex shapes, but you’d have imagined it would still be well made. It looks like there’s an issue of quality rather than style, like if RollsRoyce sold cars with ripped seats and peeling paint rather than a car with more simple features 

[flying free]

No I wouldn't use that comparison at all to be honest.  The items are all well made in my opinion.  I've no idea how easy or not it was to make the bowl with that pulled rim and make it sit absolutely perfectly. My pieces are all nicely made and finished with large polished pontil marks.  But they have a slightly 'hand-finished/hand blown' (even an early 'studio' glass) type  look to them despite having been blown in a mold.  I think it was a period of experimentation with decors -cloudy/bubbly stuff etc - and the same for many makers internationally.

  See also for example WMF where with them you can never tell if it will have a polished pontil mark, a ground pontil mark or a pontil mark left partly unfinished.  But their decors and colours were incredible.
And in all honesty I still prefer the French - some examples being Schneider/Daum/Muller Freres - intercalaire and multi coloured glass of the period which were stunning, and gorgeous.  The English makers never quite pulled those decors off.   
WMF made some utterly amazing multicolour pieces too and of course, then there is the most fabulous Monart

They're 1920s and 1930s pieces and I think it was a time of great experiment and change, so not just 'refined' type design/style.  Or single coloured glass body.  But multicoloured, intercalaire effects and cloudy, bubbly decors etc. 
So they are well made, but it's just a different 'range' if you like   And not as attractive or complex as those from Monart and the French makers or WMF in my opinion.

Also in my opinion though, this S&W blue is quite honestly the best blue outside of the French early 19th century 'bleu lavande' I've ever seen on any glass.  I absolutely adore it.  It's unique to them.  And I don't think it can found anywhere else apart from on the early (1820-1830) French opaline glass (e.g. Montcenis or Bercy, or Choisy le Roi), which is equally absolutely stunning in this lavender blue colour in opalines.  Interesting given the S&W 'alabaster range' blue came 100 years later.
 
So despite the fact it's not a multi coloured complex decor design, the mere fact of the colour alone on this bowl is enough.
And I don't actually believe it's that commonly found now although there are a few pieces out there.  For example you will find lots of pink and green S&W 'alabaster range' pieces but not that many in this blue.  I have two pieces.  One rare in shape and design.
The other a compote or bowl which  I was  thrilled to buy  because the colour just lifts my entire collection.

Montcenis bleu lavande here. It photographs appallingly badly which I think is to do with the way the colour is made in the batch I guess - my piece also photographs badly and yet in real life is a stunningly beautiful lavender.  Mine also glows bright red through the base when held up to strong light
https://www.gros-delettrez.com/lot/4/1430348?npp=&

The S&W alabaster range blue does not glow red when held to strong light.  I think it's opacified with a different method.  It makes it not as ethereally beautiful as the 1820s French opalines but it does have the effect of strengthening the lavender blue to a startling colour.



On a separate note - there's a bit of interesting information here about Elwell and how Nazeing blew some glass for S&W for example as well:

http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,41369.msg228957.html#msg228957

[NevB]

Here's a link to a jug I've posted, do you think they could be related? I've seen a reference to Keith Murray "Sapphire Cased Bubbly" but I don't know if it's relevant.



https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,70280.0.html

[flying free]

In my opinion I don't think it looks the same colour at all and the bubbly effect looks very different.

[Scott13]

 

   Just seen in Charles Hajdamach’s 20th century British Glass book that S&W supplied Elwell with glass vases and bowls in 1938, one of which was described as “Blue Cased Inside Bubbly”—which describes my bowl pretty well.
Page 105. Others were “Dark Blue Shower” and “Shower Bubbly”
No idea if this is relevant 

Two more photos to show the arrangement of the bubbles.

[NevB]

flying free, It's difficult to judge the colour because the bowl is solid and my jug is hollow, also the photos don't show the intensity very well.

[flying free]

It is difficult to judge colour on screen and yours is a jug v a bowl which has walls nearer together looking at it from the front - ie. double thickness I guess and not a huge amount of light show through it by comparison to your jug.
However your jug looks sapphire blue to me.  The bowl is lavender blue coloured with a hint of cobalt.

That said ... I have a very curious S&W stirrup cup that is in a very similar blue to your jug!  Maybe it appears sapphire because it's so transparent.  I will get my bowl and also the stirrup cup down later and see whether they look similar blues together

[Ekimp]

No I wouldn't use that comparison at all to be honest.  The items are all well made in my opinion.  I've no idea how easy or not it was to make the bowl with that pulled rim and make it sit absolutely perfectly. My pieces are all nicely made and finished with large polished pontil marks.  But they have a slightly 'hand-finished/hand blown' (even an early 'studio' glass) type  look to them despite having been blown in a mold.  I think it was a period of experimentation with decors -cloudy/bubbly stuff etc - and the same for many makers internationally.

Thanks for the information. I wasn’t saying that I thought this wasn’t S&W as I’m sure my rainbow bowl in the same shape was lopsided too. But it looks to me like something that hasn’t been made that well due to the lumpiness and being lopsided or maybe it was just made quickly. I’ll have to pay more attention to colour as I wouldn’t have thought this would be S&W if I had seen it and not known the shape (the only S&W shape I know!)

I have a conical Mdina bowl (without the everted rim) that I assume would have been quite cheap, made for tourists, and its shape is almost perfect in comparison. The Mdina bowl is ground flat on the bottom, which must help correct any lopsided tendencies, but it is very conical. I tend to think that the Mdina bowl has a rustic style (don’t want to offend anyone  ) in the way you described, but I would also say it is much better formed. I wonder how well the Mdina everted rim bowls are formed.

I also have a clear Biot bubble bowl that does have an everted rim, it’s a similar shape but the top is not quite so flat. The Biot bowl has a snapped pontil, so not ground flat, and even so it sits nicely upright, and it is well formed without the lumpiness. I think of the Biot bowl as being more rustic than the Mdina bowl but also better formed than Scott’s blue S&W bowl.

I don’t know anything about Nev’s jug but note that the style of bubbles in Scott’s blue S&W bowl also look different to the ones of the blue S&W bowl in my link in reply #1.

[Scott13]

  Hi Ekimp
 I’ve had another good look at Bradbury’s photos in the link you provided and quite honestly I’m not sure that their
 respective ( Bradbury’s bowl and mine ) ‘ bubbly effects’ are that different.
Especially so if you look at Bradbury’s base photo. 
 
I think Rustic is quite acceptable—I’d prefer Arts and Crafts though