Topic: Glass Bowl ID Help - James Powell?

[glassobsessed]

The shape almost suggests a lid. How big is it?

John

[Lustrousstone]

M suggests this is S&W green https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/stevens-and-williams-green-art-glass-bowl-130-c-13746fa9c6 but I always think of it as Stuart green

[flying free]

ooh that's interesting Christine.  So I could have been incorrectly looking at these pieces for years and thinking they were S&W 

[flying free]

This is a Keith Murray green vase sold at Bonhams apparently marked.  I think this is why I've been thinking of that green as S&W.
However, looking at the shape of that dark green vase Christine linked to again, it's another of the squat form that Stuart were so fond of as well. 

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/11795/lot/32/

[flying free]

Ah no, it's because I'd seen this one (Scroll down the page and the green bowl appears on the right hand side) and an accompanying piece of info and matching picture that says it comes from:
'ca. 1910 - Illustration at right taken from the Illustrated Catalogue of English Table Glass manufactured by Stevens & Williams, ca. 1907-1920'

I don't have that Illustrated Catalogue to see if an actual pattern number or original source id was available to back that up unfortunately.  But I think that's why I've always thought of them as S&W

https://sites.google.com/a/bohemianglassandmore.com/bohemian-glass-and-more/miscellaneous-identified-pieces

[flying free]

Looking it up, the Illustrated Catalogue of English Table Glass appears to have been produced by Stevens and Williams.  Does anyone know if this is correct or actually have this catalogue please?
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Illustrated_Catalogue_of_English_Table_G.html?id=zMefzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

'Title   Illustrated Catalogue of English Table Glass Services
Publisher   Stevens & Williams, Limited, 1930
Length   22 pages'

[Paul S.]

nope - sorry - possibly the sort of thing Nigel might have owned.                    Coming back, m, to the seller of the 'Fibrillose' item in your much earlier link, which carries the wrong Rd. No. on its bottom  -  despite the substantial amount of text by the seller as to Registration data etc. etc., would seem there wasn't any first hand research.           Had that been the case then I'm sure the 'wrong number' issue would have surfaced very quickly, and IMHO it would appear to be very rare that a substantial mistake such as this occurs.   
P.S.    your 'catalogue isn't coming up anywhere on screen searches  -  a tad rare I'd suggest.

[flying free]

                   Coming back, m, to the seller of the 'Fibrillose' item in your much earlier link, which carries the wrong Rd. No. on its bottom  -  despite the substantial amount of text by the seller as to Registration data etc. etc., would seem there wasn't any first hand research.           Had that been the case then I'm sure the 'wrong number' issue would have surfaced very quickly, and IMHO it would appear to be very rare that a substantial mistake such as this occurs.   
P.S.    your 'catalogue isn't coming up anywhere on screen searches  -  a tad rare I'd suggest.

Hi Paul, you have seen and looked at far more registered glass and designs than I will ever hope to so I take your point that this would be considered rare.
I did look up the S&W Fibrilose (note - Charles Hajdamach in 20th Century British Glass spells it with one L although I used two Ls in my original writing of the decor name) and there is a an example in plate 36 page 24.  The decor looks like the bowl with the wrong RD number.  So even if this were a later addition and added incorrectly, I'm still of the opinion that bowl is an S&W Fibrilose piece.

The Fibrilose green trailing decoration can also be seen on many Silveria pieces as well interestingly.

[flying free]

With regard to the dark green bowl I always think of as S&W and accompanying picture as id source in that link I gave:-   that Illustrated Catalogue was produced, it appears, by Stevens and Williams in 1930.  I have to think that had they inadvertently included a bowl in their own catalogue that was from another maker, it was close enough in time frame for the other maker to step up and say 'hey, that's our bowl'.  Both Stuart and S&W were very much alive and active at that time.  Stranger things have happened though!

[Paul S.]

hmm  -  so it would seem that this nouveau style green bowl (with eight points to the rim and with wavy moulded lines  -  linked by you earlier and more recently by Christine  -   is definitely S. & W. and not Stuart, though like you m for some reason I had been more inclined to think Stuart.          I've looked through Reynolds Appendix B at his list of S. & W. Registered designs 1884 - 1928, and this bowl design appears not to have been Registered with the BoT.                    The bowl is strikingly art nouveau in appearance and most unusual that such a design should appear at a time when deco fashion was at it's height.

Again, I copied Reynolds spelling for Fibrillose, so if two ells are wrong then it's his fault and not mine            The other oddity IMHO, is that Reynolds heads up his list of all the S. & W. Registrations  - 1884 to 1928 - as being CLASS IV.         We all know glass is CLASS III, though occasionally the odd item is recorded as IV, but why Reynolds should quote them all as IV I've no idea.

If you look at Hajdamach '20th Century British Glass' - page 37 .........   he shows clear vases with green decoration and wavy rims etc. dated to c. 1900 - 1910 (typical of nouveau style) and which he states were saved from the Stuart factory when they closed   -  pieces very similar to the green eight pointed bowl we've been discussing, and some with moulded ribs too.                     However, he does caution collectors to be aware that T.W. and S. & W. also produced such designs.

I now do have the clear example of the same shaped bowl as the green thingy we've been discussing - will post separately shortly.            Absolutely no idea from where you might source the catalogue you want to see  -  the V. & A. might be worth a shot.