Topic: Thomas Webb top hat posy vase - RD 298626

[flying free]

because finding easy online comparisons for people who don't have books so they can see what other makers were doing, or even compare to see if the identification of the other maker is correct (museums are not always right)  is quite nice

Even if it's just comparing the colour of the pale blue.  The pale blue trailing is quite unusual .

Lots of errors in museum identifications I find.  So it's handy to have the comparisons to see if that 'Hodgetts Richardson' carafe may indeed be by Thomas Webb perhaps.


For example, this item in the V&A is only 'attributed to' Hodgetts Richardson:

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O5054/jug-hodgetts-richardson/

And there are differences to  the jug trailing in the V&A and the goblet in the Dudley Museums collection as well.  The type of glass used for the trailing perhaps, the goblet looks like opaline glass trails, the jug doesn't.  And also that the jug appear to have been machine trailed, the goblet perhaps handtrailed although it's very neat.  So the two 'Hodgetts Richardon' pieces might not both be by HR?

[Paul S.]

I refuse to be drawn into any kind of debate about opal, opalescent or opaline glass  -  I still have memories of our endless toing and froing the last time we went down that road          I'd suggest that determining opaline in a turquoise shade - on the screen - is a very big ask  ...  it isn't simply turquoise coloured glass.      As you will know better than me, opaline was a speciality of Baccarat (first half C19) though it was also big in the Gulf of Venice in the C17  -  but certainly turquoise was one of the colours made in opaline, and the French were renowned for making the stuff.                   Usually in pastel hues, and some degree of translucence is essential which is then opacified by the inclusion of ashes of calcined bones and then metalic oxides for colouring.                Unfortunately, so many folk seem to think that almost every piece of opaque coloured glass is opaline which does make for confusion.

Regret I can't comment on the veracity of museum exhibits  -  I have enough problems researching my charity shops finds, but take your word for it that they are knee deep in errors  -  I suppose we tend automatically to assume that as experts they're going to be 99% correct. 

Coming back to John's top hat, and in comparison with your links, it does seem, as you've said, that turquoise was a colour used for trailing albeit rarely, though turquoise used for a solid trail for edge trimming - as on John's hat - seems non-existent, and it was in that sense I was a tad troubled.          On the face of it John's hat is unique, at least until another pops up  -  so I'm prepared to go to a tenner John it that helps.   -   but I'd suggest a very important find and well done.     
   

[flying free]

From Paul above 'Regret I can't comment on the veracity of museum exhibits  -  I have enough problems researching my charity shops finds, but take your word for it that they are knee deep in errors  -  I suppose we tend automatically to assume that as experts they're going to be 99% correct. 
'

No, I didn't say they were knee deep in errors.  I said they were not always correct

Yes they are experts. However, many of the identifications or attributions were given a long time ago.  They have not always been updated by successive curators as  more detailed information has become more widely available by the publication of new books and online resources and theses etc.  There are thousands of pieces of glass in the museums collections.

I'm going to add a new example of a query in the Glass section now.  Look out for my 'Alexandrite' question

[Paul S.]

It appears from your post that you wrote ...........   "Lots of errors in museum identifications I find."              It's disheartening to say the least to realize this may be the case  -  I recall visiting the V. & A. occasionally for their drop in surgery/ID sessions, when (and I forget the main guy's name) was in charge (Rene something)  -  they had entire rooms full of books on glass no doubt funded by taxpayer's money, and we might have thought that level of research information could have avoided too many errors.             I think there's an opening for you somewhere there.

[flying free]

I did, and I do find lots of errors. 
'Knee deep' though just sounds overly dramatic and more excessive than I meant to imply from my wording.

There are lots of books Paul, but equally many of the earlier books may contain incorrect information as well.  Research was not as readily available/accessible as it has been in recent years.
 
The design/pattern books are really the only true source of reference however they are obviously not always available for all factories.

[Paul S.]

you're correct - I shouldn't use a literal expression in a figurative sense - it was just that you seemed to be implying the situation was dire - and I do so love OTT expressions .

As to the other sources you mention  -  that's why I feel it's important to continue with TNA, as this is first hand original data from the horses mouth as they say. 

[Paul S.]

not that it's relevant to John's top hat directly, but just remembered that Sowerby used turquoise - in solid trail form - on their Venetian Ware series manufactured c. 1880.

[flying free]

 

The info you find from the NA is amazing.  Without your efforts a great many threads on this board would not have back-up research.

Shame we can't all access the pattern books online really but I do love a piece of detective work



Good point about Sowerby!

[chopin-liszt]

Sowerby nuggets! 

[glassobsessed]

I refuse to be drawn into any kind of debate about opal, opalescent or opaline glass 

Made me chuckle and I wholeheartedly agree. 

The blue on the top hat is opaque with no hint of opalescence whatsoever, bit of a relief in the circumstances!

As it has been mentioned a bit of Sowerby Venetian.