Topic: I say Whitefriars, you say...?

[Pinky]

....Hallo Pinksppons........I REALLY like your animations of the vase!! Those four internal ribs look like the interior of the 4 lobed shape, designed by William Wilson, pattern number 9411 or the small molar shape - much nearer the height of yours, W. Wilson again, pattern number 9410 (I'm looking at the molar here, circa 5.5 inches high including clear casing to the outside). The exterior 'creases' on the lobed vase are not nearly as distinct/deep as those on the molar shape (see Lesley Jackson, page 134, plate 142) so I'm thinking if there is a significant variation between these two patterns then it's reasonable to speculate that a glassmaker could conjure another variation with no surface creases or lobes at all.......put another way your vase perhaps started life as a lobed or molar but the maker changed his mind...or something:........that it looks like a hybrid between one or other of the patterns above and 9355. Therefore a good trial or frigger. Friggers at Whitefriars were not supposed to replicate catalogue items and they vary in quality of craftmanship. There's some really wonky ones so you can tell that they were made by inexperienced staff, say footmakers pieces. Others, though, are well made and finished as a matter of pride (by gaffers and keen, talented learners especially) to be taken home as gifts for in-laws etc's. There's a few other views it'd be good to get on this'un before saying for an absolute certainty it's Whitefriars - it looks like it, though and bar the lack of casing looks like it could easily 'fit in' with the series of smooth-walled bubbly and non-bubbly vases designed by W. Wilson and G. Baxter around the 1954 and 1955 period.......if not a teeny bit before..... no casing like W. Wilsons earlier bubbly bits. Pinky

[Pinkspoons]

Hello, Stephen and Pinky. Thanks for the background information and suggestions.

Pinky, there are 5 ribs inside the vase and five faint lobe-like wobbles on the base, rather than 4.

I have a 4-lobed 9385 which is fairly smooth on the interior, but the creases on the exterior of the vase feel very much like those on the inside of mine. I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to actualy glass-making techniques, much to my shame, but are creases like that pushed and prodded into shape by hand (not literally by hand - ouch!), or made some other way?

I've taken one or two better photographs of the vase - don't know if they'll help at all...

Vase 1
Vase 2
Vase 3
Vase 4
Vase 5

There's a few other views it'd be good to get on this'un before saying for an absolute certainty it's Whitefriars - it looks like it, though.

Any idea where I could get these views? It'd be nice to know that I've not just bought a wonky one for once! 

[Pinkspoons]

Ah... looks like the vase is going back to the wonky bin - I've just found another on eBay!

Auction

[Pinky]

...........hallo Pinkspoons:.........am perplexed like you, hearing little doubting noises in my mind, questions that won't be silenced:...I'm intrigued by the glass-making technique for this vase hence the need last night to seek 'other views'.....that is, for the sake of eliminating all the possibilities, if it's NOT a frigger or trial why start life as a molar or lobed but finish as another (5 lobed pieces as well as 4 lobed made in other shapes). Pinkspoons I'm going to have a natter with Ray Annenberg and see if he can help us. The fact that another has appeared on eBay now has 'made the voices louder') and leads me to wonder whether this is a production shape that I have not searched the catalogues diligently enough for or a production shape which did not enter the catalogues - this has happened before. Or that it's not WF. I'll come back, Pinkspoons. PinkyX Please not to be putting it in your wonky bin as it looks like a very nice vase:

[Pinkspoons]

No need to worry - it's only a hypothetical wonky bin. 

I've asked the seller if their vase has internal ribbing too - just to double check that they're the same pattern. If so, I may put a bid in - a pair of them would be quite nice, whatever they turn out to be. If not, then the eBay one may just be an ordinary 9355 with only slight lobing (I can see an undulation towards the base in the 2nd auction photograph).

Thanks for taking the time to look into this one. 

Edit: The seller replied, and the vase does seem to have similar internal patterns.

[Pinky]

......Pinkspoons.......I'm ever so sorry - haven't had a chance to get on to Mr A yet because local property developer has just mashed down creatures and trees in my neighbourhood (before residents views due in and planning application has barely been scrutinized) and fighting to stop it on all fronts - many communications written and to be written yet.
Vidfletch has also been indisposed for his own reasons - but rang me last night....he had a look at your vase (thank you, Vidfletch) and wondered whether the bubbles weren't too small - that Wilsons tend to be more elongated. It might be of Swedish origin speculates Vidfletch.
For your info - I've got a couple of bits here that look and feel like Whitefriars but that I'm querying - they almost but not exactly match the catalogues. Orrefors/Stromberg/(Elverston or Elvers?....sorry Pinkspoons my glass mind is an absolute blank currently) Captain Dunn-Cook closely connected with one/some/all these names before he joined Whitefriars - hence a strong design link. Perhaps one of the Swedish houses mentioned above be worth a peep......Patrick Hugo a Hoganot a Go Go or another can come to help us Pinkses and clarify that elvin name.
Sorry to confuse the issue, Pinkspoons....these other bits I've got here equally stinkerish. Apologies too for lack of bubble observance. Will get on to Mr A about lobes and tumbler vase combination rationale as soon as I can but at the moment I really am tied up very tight indeed. PinkyX .....signed off then sudden thought - would people be reckoning this selenium ruby? Selenium won't turn red if in lead crystal?........tis why Full Lead Crystal Gold has an orangy tinge in certain lights - it's selenium trying to go red but can't? More muddling but can't clarify these strands currently...........

[Pinky]

............and if it's a Whitefriars selenium ruby twill more than likely be cased in clear (soda based) glass not lead (water test good idea if the casing is very thin). Your vase looks uncased in the picture so I got muddled then last night it was a classic case of 'brain drain'. A few chunks (not by any means all) have managed to fall into position, though, Pinkspoons and...

I've had a chat with my old pal Hudders (Graham Hudson) who collected these some time back. He's had a look at yours and feels it's Whitefriars - 9355 mini version of 9117. He found many variations in lobe prominence (and attendant crease depth) from vase to vase. Mr A is away but've managed to sound things out with another glassmaking chum who has confirmed Hudders and your findings in lobe/crease variation by way of the method in the glassmaking.

I speculated earlier that the vase may have been a frigger based on a lobed or molar form. Well it isn't a frigger but is a variation on the lobed and molar forms. The tumbler part isn't important - that was just me being incorrect. The ruby ball is first blown into a bubble mould. Then it's cased in clear glass. Then it's blown into an open optic mould as are other lobed and the molar shapes - in your case an open optic with 5 creases. At this point the vessel/vase is roughly half the size it's going to be - the glassmaker then blows it further and shapes accordingly .The variation in lobe prominence is a function of glass weight (and gravity etc - imagine the maths - cor - I can't:. If the glass is heavy and cased in a lot of crystal the lobes are far more prominent - that's the molar vase. If the glass is very light together with very little casing the lobes can almost be said to have been 'blown away' - there may be barely discernible creases to indicate they're there and you'll have to search the underside carefully to find the lobes. There will, of course be many 'in betweens' because the glass is hand blown.

Does this help Pinksppons? PinkyX PS the bubbles are fine says Hudders - Vidfletch still questioning

[Pinkspoons]

Hello, Pinky. Thanks for taking the time and effort to look into this vase - it is very much appreciated.

Your vase looks uncased in the picture so I got muddled then last night it was a classic case of 'brain drain'

It is uncased. Solid ruby all the way through, as far as I can see.

I had pondered the size of the bubbles too, as most of my WF bubbly pieces have quite elongated ones - except for my Parker Pen ashtray, which has equally tiny bubbles. But the other pro-WF factors outweighed the cons, so I was never really doubting that it was WF.

Emmi came to the idea earlier in the thread that this might be a 9355. Would it be okay to say that this is the general concensus?

Thanks for the explanation for how these vases are made - it's really fascinating. My knowledge of the glass-making process is woefully limited. And please forward my thanks to everyone who chipped in. 

[vidrioguapo]

Hi Nic, since this thread started, I have purchased two of these, almost identical to yours, slightly different bottoms on each one, and bubbles similar to yours.  I agree that the bubbles are not so elongated on these compared to several larger vases I have in the same range.  The size of them seems to be "scaled down" to suit the smaller size of vase and are in the main more round. One of them has more obvious "creases" which you first described as vertical optic ribs, if I remember rightly, but optic ribs are a different kettle of fish entirely.  So my view remains as it was earlier, that it is a 9355.  It's been an interesting exercise though and a good close inspection of a piece which is generally just "on the shelf" brings to light some interesting observations! Cheers  Emmi

[Pinky]

.........I think you're probably right Pinkspoons and Emmi. Please be knowing that I'm deeply respecting your knowledge and 'feels' for the glass.......I know I'm being fussy and silly but I've not collected this era and am a teensy bit worried about the casing thing.....just want to clear it up - every little bit of extra technical thing helps. And I'm wondering in general, whether there were different sized bubble moulds.........