Topic: Diamond quilted footed bowl ?

[bat20]

Hi,this maybe another piece which will be hard to pin down completely.It’s 6cm high with a very smart ring and a small central polished pontil ,it has to be Victorian ? and there is visible wear to the trailed cranberry foot .Guessing Stourbridge 1890 ish ?any ideas ,Ta.

[bat20]

Better show this one aswell

[bat20]

Sorry ,I should it’s fairly weighty for it’s size .

[Paul S.]

In view of the size, makes me wonder if it's someone's effort at a very decorative Monteith, jelly or sweetmeat.    Historically, they were known for having this honeycomb-moulded pattern, and there are examples with coloured rims too.      Not a clue as to age, though originally such pieces were from the C18, but this one looks too neat and I'm sure far more modern.     Anyway very nice looking piece and hopefully others will have some more useful info.

[bat20]

I agree Paul, it’s got things about it that push one to an earlier date and it does have a slight lean , but the glass seems a tad bright and the colour of the trail not quite red enough ?..the weight and foot size have me double guessing though ?

[bat20]

Here’s a photo of the wear on the trailed foot, enough to flatten the trail in the spots it sits on ,I’m still in the late 19th ? Maybe a bit earlier ?

[bat20]

Here’s one more which may or may not be of interest,under the bowl in the deeply textured foot there’s black as you like dirt,not an area easily cleaned I guess .

[bat20]

Just found this ?could it be a salt from about 1820,seems a bit big and is the advertised glass 1820 ?

https://www.vinterior.co/home-decor/kitchenware/glassware/very-rare-georgian-orange-rimmed-moulded-glass-salt-c1820?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=58498120959&utm_content=295408715186&utm_keyword=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6rGo1Ye98gIVUrvVCh2jYwTVEAQYAiABEgJHE_D_BwE

[Paul S.]

this sort of quilting/honeycomb/diamond moulding, goes way back beyond even the date quoted for the 'salt' in the link - always reminds me of Ravenscroft's' 'nipt diamond waies'.         Unless we are experts in table glass from the late Georgian period, then we won't know if the date quoted refers accurately to the piece in question  -  unfortunately there's a complete lack of provenance  -  so prospective buyers must either be up to speed on this piece and know from experience it is what it says it is - alternatively we simply take the seller's word for it.            Think if I was paying this sort of price I'd want some provenance.
We're all accustomed to seeing the zillions of table salts from the Victorian period  -  usually heavy chunky pieces - quite different from the earlier cut glass jobs, often shaped but, presumably, very rarely given the sort of coloured decoration as in the link.          Looking in the books, the majority of salts from the first third of the C19 appear to have chunky square or diamond shaped feet - could be the linked piece looks a tad too delicate for a salt??

I'd hazard a guess that the piece linked might be a tad larger than the piece here, and if it was intended for the use quoted then possibly it might be a 'master salt'.              Certainly the moulding on both pieces is remarkably similar  -  whether that has significance is a matter of opinion - and we always  have to remember the word 'copy'.        I'm still of the opinion that both pieces may have been intended as sweetmeats of some sort, or a Monteith, as mentioned.           You might contact the seller and ask if there is provenance for their quoted date and use.

[bat20]

I’ll try and contact the seller and ask his provenance in a nice way, their other pieces seem about right, but other sellers seem way off !!I think the wear is genuine and the ring suggests a well leaded metal,if that’s the correct terminology 😀…it was a fiver so nobody was trying to fool anyone on my piece .