Author Topic: Stennett-Willson for Lemington? (Read 2083 times)

Pip · « **on:** September 18, 2006, 10:53:17 PM »

Hiya everyone

This is a large vase at 9.5in/24cm tall and 2350g in weight :shock: and with a significant amount of base/age wear. I'm wondering if anyone can confirm if this is a Ronald Stennett-Willson designed piece for Lemington - 1960-62. It certainly looks a lot like one to me. Below are links to a full shot and a close up of the rim - cheers in advance for any help/comments...

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g60/pips-trip/RSW10001.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g60/pips-trip/RSW20001.jpg

Della · « **Reply #1 on:** September 19, 2006, 07:36:00 AM »

Hi Pip,
On pg 229 of Andy McConnell's book, Millers 20th Century Glass, there is an identical vase pictued, albeit larger in height (I think it says 19" but the writing is so tiny). The picture is taken from the 1960 catalogue of Lemington Glass and given as being designed by Stennett-Wilson.

Bernard C · « **Reply #2 on:** September 19, 2006, 07:53:19 AM »

On p136 of my copy of Jackson Whitefriars is the pencilled marginal note re Plate 149 (i), an identical vase in amethyst, "actually Kings Lynn / Wedgwood â€” See Evans p.335". On this page Evans shows Baxter drawings dated 1962 with similar but not identical shapes. It is easy to see why attributing these pieces presents problems.

The 2004 RSW Exhibition Souvenir shows three examples, in amethyst, flint and orange, ref RSW 10. "... An angular vase, straight-sided but tapering at the neck and foot, originally designed for Lemington, was produced [by Kings Lynn] in various colours ..."

Bernard C.

Pip · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2006, 08:55:03 AM »

Thanks mucho again Della and also Bernard. I think I'm going to assume for the time being that it's Lemington and not Kings Lynn based purely on the base wear. Bernard, am I correct in thinking that the Kings Lynn ones were much later in date? There's just so much base wear on this I'm thinking it's early 1960's - but I'll admit it's an unorthodox way of identifying something! LOL

Bernard C · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2006, 06:08:54 PM »

Quote from: "Pip"

... Bernard, am I correct in thinking that the Kings Lynn ones were much later in date? ...

Probably less than five years.

You will find a very short list of those who may be able to help with attribution in the Exhibition catalogue, p.6., but do not expect them to be clairvoyant. On the shelf I have a fabulous perfume atomiser. I know who made and cut the glass â€” the Walsh master craftsmen, but nobody can tell whether it was made by them at the Walsh factory before it closed in 1951, or later after they moved to Tudor Crystal. There are always going to be Lemington/Kings Lynn/Wedgwood attribution difficulties. Does it really matter?

Bernard C.

Pip · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2006, 06:23:01 PM »

Quote from: "Bernard C"

Probably less than five years.

You will find a very short list of those who may be able to help with attribution in the Exhibition catalogue, p.6., but do not expect them to be clairvoyant. On the shelf I have a fabulous perfume atomiser. I know who made and cut the glass â€” the Walsh master craftsmen, but nobody can tell whether it was made by them at the Walsh factory before it closed in 1951, or later after they moved to Tudor Crystal. There are always going to be Lemington/Kings Lynn/Wedgwood attribution difficulties. Does it really matter? Bernard C.

Ah, I was labouring under the (wrong) impression that the Kings Lynn versions were quite a bit later (Lemington early 60's vs Kings Lynn late 70's) - no you're quite right Bernard, if they're so close in manufacture it's not important to pin it down precisely, I didn't realise until I got this piece that there was quite so much of a grey area/crossover between the factories. Thanks for your help so far anyway, sort of proved my first suspicions to be along the right lines :-)