Topic: Thomas Webb Webb's Alexandrite v. New England Amberina 19th c.

[flying free]

There are also these two ?underplates? (and I have no idea whether the maker identification is correct btw)
one very pale
https://fineart.ha.com/itm/glass/two-american-fuchsia-amberina-glass-platesnew-england-glass-co-c1890each-with-gently-undulating-rims-and-unmatching/a/614-30791.s

The one on the left would be a good match for my bowl actually

[cagney]

  Your bowl certainly looks colloidal in its nature and "struck'. Lighting can have a dramatic effect sometimes as to photographs. That said, a lot of Libby pieces seem to be much paler amber than the NEG product and the rich fuchsia color more common. Carl U. Fauster's book " LIBBEY GLASS   SINCE1818.     Pctorial History & Collecter's Guide " copyright 1979  Len Beach Press  states that the 1917 version used the same secret batch formula originally developed by Joseph Locke. Also in this book is a color photograph of a vase from the 1917 series that looks to have two medium amber handles. His description is a different matter altogether. " HANDLED VASE- One of the few handled items in the 1917 Amberina series. Handles are so light a straw color that the seem almost clear glass "

Certainly there where differences in the furnaces used. NEG furnace old coal fired. Libbey's newer gas fired. Possibly mattered how much the glass had cooled before being "struck".

[flying free]

Thank you for the extra information Cagney.  I appreciate you taking the time to help as I have absolutely zero, nothing on American glass.  I've read online as much as possible but that description you've quoted re the paleness of the amber really helps.

The different furnaces is interesting.  The glass on this bowl just looks old and has some tiny specks and a stone in.  Would that happen with a gas furnace? I don't really know how much cleaner or not they were or whether they had an impact on the quality of the glass. 
Another question - they moved to Toledo in 1888 and continued production of Amberina and recorded between 1889 and 1891  apparently 200 batches (New England Pomona (1885–1887): Lead Analysis as a Study Tool, Beatrice Scheer Smith).  Would they have been using gas furnaces at that point or was it later in the Libbey history when they were used.

I suppose I'm looking at the shape and the glass quality re the striations and seeds/stone and just thinking it feels like Victorian glass, and also I can't see this being particularly 'fashionable' in 1917 when they 're-issued'.   
The only other question about Libbey v NEG is that if it were Libbey wouldn't it have been marked, as opposed to NEG which would have just had a label? Or was it only the re-issued 1917 Amberina that was marked Libbey?
Would the Amberina they produced between 1889 and 1891 not have been marked?

Having read about their Pomona glass recipes and the research that has gone into the lead quantity for that  (New England Pomona (1885–1887): Lead Analysis as a Study Tool, Beatrice Scheer Smith) and taking into consideration the cost of experimenting with colloidal gold I can quite see that they would just replicate the original recipe given they knew it worked.

I still have the issue of not being able to match the shape or the hand crimped bowl rim though even if it is accepted a) that the very pale peachy amber base is right and b) that it is heat treated fuchsia. 


I took my photos in daylight because the ones I've seen online show how the fuchsia looks under lighting but in daylight all glass looks a little different. 
This is a fairly good/representative one under led lighting. 

Yikes, so many questions and thoughts   apologies.

[cagney]

  I agree your bowl has all the attributes of being a late victorian design. Age wise as well.  I have had probably 5 or 10 lead glass pieces that would not pass any real quality control even by 19th century standards. Maybe factory seconds or take home pieces. Still cherished over the years and survived to be acquired by me.
  As to furnaces and/or "stones" in glass. A coal furnace I think would be much harder to maintain a steady temperature in vs a gas fired furnace. " stones" are What? My conclusion is they are particles of the clay pot that fly off into the glass mixture  and are evidence of the pot degrading. Of course they would not melt. I have seen stones in marked Heisey glass from 1st quarter of 20th century. I believe it is more common in lead glass than the soda lime, discounting the common bottle glass that seems to run the whole gamut of quality.

[cagney]

 Totally missed your question concerning NEG's markings after Libbey took control. But. I do have an answer. From the previously mentioned book "LIBBEY GLASS ". An actual photo copy of an advertisement in the CROCKERT AND GLASS JOURNAL. Description reads as follows. " This advertisement  in CROCKERY AND GLASS JOURNAL April 3, 1884 confirms that about the time Edward Drummond Libbey took control of the New England Glass Works in 1883, the factory's stock of Amberina Art Glass was offered at " Greatly Reduced Prices " in order to move the inventory and avoid bankruptcy. Soon after, Mr. Libbey, himself, sold his factory's warehouse stock of Amberina to Tiffany,s in New York.

[flying free]

Oh thank you.   I'd read something about Tiffany's as well but couldn't remember when/what. 
I'm very grateful for your help
So the Tiffany sale was in  1884.  In the Pomona report I quoted above it seems to imply(from my reading) that in 1887 there were 150 batches of 'ruby (Amberina)' produced (their information from the NEG records) so they were still producing it then.
I'm wondering if it was only the re-issued stuff (1917) that was marked.

I can't think of anyone else who might have made this particular fuchsia coloured graduated glass to be honest which is why I think it's from them. Not that this means much but I've never seen this colour on anything else not even 'rubina verde' type stuff which I do see here.
 However what's causing me pause for thought is the rim shape and also that, as you mentioned, the earlier stuff seems to appear to be less fuchsia and more red.
We may have got over the pale amber colour being a problem but  I need to try and find an example of NEG glass with the crimped castellated style rim I think  

Nice to have something new to read about and it gives me something to research.

[cagney]

  There is no documentation of any marked Libbey glass prior to a few specific souvenir pieces made for/ at Worlds Columbian Exposition / Chicago Worlds Fair in 1893. Libbey did adopt a trade mark in 1892 that incorporated an eagle used in advertisements  and this is the mark on the specific souvenir items, Written/ stamped in red. The iconic etched 'LIBBEY"over a sword was adopted in 1896 later changed to simply 'LIBBEY" in 1906.
  I would guess that Libbey did produce more Amberina after 1884 if it was still a good seller.

[Lustrousstone]

M, I'm not convinced your bowl has any amber, rather that it is off colourless. The pink may also have been created by the bubble blowing technique rather than heat striking. Are there any tiny holes in the pink when you hold it to the light? It could well be English but perhaps by one of the lesser makers, as the crimps are a bit irregular. Pretty bowl though.

[flying free]

No tiny holes (you mean like we sometimes see in the say orange casing in Bohemian glass?) but I still have an open mind on whether it's heatstruck or cased.  It's a bit of a weird one and I can't compare the fade to my Alexandrite as it's a miniature and also textured so it's just too difficult to see.
It does look very like the Scottish Glass bowl though close up.

The quality seems good overall because I think it's lead glass and it has a beautifully polished pontil mark and hand pulled rim. But ... the glass is seedy and the odd tiny bubbles and has a stone in. So it looks old but could be from a 'lesser' maker.  I mean the shape wouldn't put it at much earlier than 1870s would it so it can't be that much older? 
The glass colour could just be a not very good batch with a weird peach tint to it.

Re the fuchsia pink - I think given it's age it must have been created with colloidal gold? 
Could the fuchsia have been created by using a gold ruby casing? It doesn't compare to any of the gold ruby cased pieces (both pink and red) I currently have - about 10 pieces including from around that time period or earlier.  It's an unusual colour.  Would that indicate it's been achieved by heat striking?
The fade and pink colour effect honestly doesn't look any different to the glass on this link which is marked Libbey (except the pale glass is much paler almost clear rather than amber)
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/46454986_libbey-amberina-compote-optic-ribbed-footed-form-with

This one is very pale (and is two layer because you're looking through from front to back) and also has what I think a tiny bubbles in the neck up near the pink:
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/lot-1039-libbey-amberina-vase-64507/

Are these really New England Glass?  - if they are, then the amber is very pale and the glass has teeny bubbles etc:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/181597826039?hash=item2a4812ebf7:g:v2gAAOSwR0JUPIHy

New England Pomona glass with crimped castellated rim (not the same as mine though):
https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/5-new-england-pomona-glass-items-222-c-9cf430395c

[flying free]

Actually forget the last link to Pomona.  I'm not sure that it's actually New England glass.
m