Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: fatbelly on June 04, 2019, 11:41:24 AM
-
Hello.
Does anyone have any ideas on this piece.Just purchased as it intrigued me.
The surface is crackled with deeper crackle to the top smoothing nearer to the base.
White cased interior.
Measures just over 7.5” with max width just under 5”.
Wear to base but no discernible pontil.
Looks Monart like from a distance but isn’t.
Poss Czech....European.
Any input greatly appreciated
FB
-
Why do you discount Monart? Looks good to me at first glance...
It would be shape C, sizes are not always exact: https://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Page01.htm
John
-
Hi John
Thanks for the reply.
I really didn’t think it would be because of no outer ring and polished prunt.
That said I have not held a piece of Monart surface decorated before.I have had a dozens of nice pieces of Monart but never surface decorated.This may be the first then.
Would it not have the outer ring and polished pontil prunt?
FB
-
That would be my only reservation but the outer polished ring you mention is often not present, it would not have been added when it was not necessary.
Likewise I have not handled much if any Monart Cloisonné so don't know if the lack of button is significant or not in this case. See what others have to say.
-
It just looks to me as if the base ended up too thin for putting a button on.
I do suspect it is Monart.
None of the other things that might resemble it are quite as "Monart-y" as this is - it's the use of the speckled colours in combination with way the crackle is executed that tell me it's right.
-
Given how the base is finished and the overall sheen, I wondered if it may have been related to the vase discussed in the below thread. Unfortunately no picture for comparison...
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,11333.0.html
-
Thanks to you all.
It’s all good to have knowledgable people share their thoughts.
The Monart collectors will def have a strong opinion so maybe they can shed more light on it.
I will continue searching and see what comes up.It only arrived this morning but I have been researching for a week since I first spotted it before bidding.
Again many thanks.
FB
-
Well spotted and remembered Greg!
I can't say I remember reading that, and I did not know there were other "Cloissonne" lookalikes.
I knew of the combed bits with mica and the celophane stuff.
And your comment about excessive shininess rings absolutely true to me. Cloissonne normally has a dull iridesence.
But it's a good Monarty shape. ??? ::) I'm confused. ;D :-\ ;D
-
It’s not as shiny in the hand as the images suggest.The strip lights give it that hue it’s more dull when you look at it in natural light.
Could the piece be Vasart?
FB
-
I have shown this piece to a Monart collector and they feel it is right.
To be honest I’m still not so sure but will wait until one of the Monart Gary’s come on and see what they say as they are normally right.
If not it will just go on the shelf as a maybe something maybe not.
FB
-
The shape looks to be PC according to this.
https://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Page04.htm
Sizes made seem to be off but on the variants page,says proportions vary.
Paul.
-
Hi.
I think you have found its shape.Thats much appreciated.
It’s 11mm shorter than the 9”
FB
-
And the glass is finely blown, towards the base. :)
It sounds like they just didn't pick up a big enough gather for the initial embryo, which would explain the size.
Is there a subtle iridesence on the surface?
-
There is a an slight iridescent finish to the surface at certain angles.
I have a Monart powder bowl in blue and purple with a whispy white interior.Colours are virtually exactly the same which is interesting too.
FB
-
Monart. Absolutely. ;D
-
Possible colour 42b.
FB
-
To put the cat amongst the pigeons I don't think this is Monart - yes it is / or similar to a Monart shape, but the base is wrong and the colours seem wrong to me and it looks too glossy / shiny.
Lets see if any of the experts come along...... ;)
can you post a picture of the Monart bowl in the similar colours?
-
We've already discussed that :) - the shininess is an artifact of the lighting and photography and we think that the initial gather may have been a bit small so it ended up a bit thin towards the base. It did happen, they had to make do and invent their ways around many major difficulties they encountered.
-
The colour of the powder bowl is 42b as seen in the link below.If you compare them they look almost identical bar the crackle and the merging of the colours during the blow if that makes sense.
https://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Colours099.htm
One of the Monart Gary’s normally comment and or Frank but I’m open to whatever suggestion as my OP suggests the base put me off the Monart attribution originally so thought poss Czech or other.
FB.
-
I want to hear from them too. I was unsure to start off with, but the discussion and the dull iridesence convinced me.
But now, we've got Roberta... ;D
-
It’ll be interesting.Im as interested to know who people think it might be if it’s decided it’s not Monart.
Must be someone half decent working with glass
It was purchased from a dealer who thought it was murano from the 60s bought from a house clearance.
We will await the Monart people or more of them should we say.
FB.
-
The really big question would be; if not Monart, then who else could it possibly have been?
Popcorn while we wait? ;)
-
That too.I still have a vasart feeling.
FB
-
I don't, but then I do try to avoid feeling like Vasart. ;D
-
Hi,
I have a vase in the colour scheme mentioned and I think it is different to the vase in this thread.
Also, the way Monart or even Vasart was made, there would always be some sort of scar on the base where the punty rod had been knocked off, I have never seen any Ysart glass with a base like the one in this thread! So my moneys on not Monart, but other than that....no idea!
Hello Sue :-*
-
It will end up with all the experts not knowing what’s it is but knowing what it is not.
Just one of the joys of the antiques game still it was cheaper than a good bottle of red and as interesting so nothing lost and a nice item to join the box of unknowns.
FB
-
Out of curiosity how heavy is the vase?
Could you possibly add a close up picture of the wear to the base when you have a spare moment.
Thanks.
-
Hi Greg.
It’s weight is about right but I will weight it for you.
I will add a close up of the base from different angles tomorrow,There is a wear ring to the edge from surface contact but that can be produced on a wheel in a min but it looks right and genuine.
I will add some close ups of other areas too and one with the 42b colour next to it and hopefully we can narrow it down.
I researched it for a week before bidding and found nothing.
FB.
-
Thank you FB
-
Greg.
As promised.
Weighs 804g
Close up of the base and body.
4 more images in the next post
-
Close up of the top finish and two images next to a Monart powder bowl colour 42b for comparison.If it’s not the same colour palette then it’s as close as your ever going to get
FB
-
Thanks for adding these extra photos FB, you have managed to capture the close up detail well.
I am intrigued to know the origins of this vase!
Hopefully Frank will pop along at some point, would be great to hear his views on this one.
-
With regard to 'who else might have made glass like this' I just thought I'd add this link as these are similar ish in perceived overall effect and that they are coloured glass. I remembered these from a previous thread moons ago but don't know if they have ever been identified as to maker:
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/56653-mystery-glass
m
-
and also see this link to a previous thread (re who else might have made this kind of glass)
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,58231.msg329900.html#msg329900
-
Durand also used fairly opaque coloured crackle glass but I can't see anything that looks even vaguely similar.
m
-
Thanks flying free.
I have seen the collectors weekly pieces.I don’t believe they are finished or are the same as the piece in the post but I can see the similar ish ness.Just one of those pieces of glass which will stay on the shelf as an unknown for now.
FB
-
Agree with your thoughts that they aren't quite finished/made in the same way as this one :) I was just adding them as examples of layered coloured crackle glass because there are not that many examples.
On the colour combination front, I think it looks remarkably like your lidded dish but I know nothing really about Monart and I'm aware of the notes on Frank's site about those items that look similar, as well as taking into account Nigel's comments on previous piece about how the colour is laid on.
On the colour combination front, I recalled seeing this pink and blue elsewhere and conveniently one of the examples I thought of is on the board here:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,32913.msg178218.html#msg178218
I don't know how it compares bearing in mind yours is over white so the colours may not look quite as intense? I'm not a glassmaker so I don't know how they might behave or be perceived once they are overlaid on white. But thought it interesting to include here for some comparison :)
m
-
Thanks flying free.
I know the cellophane pieces well.I see them for sale as Monart all over the place esp at auctions.The powder bowl has a white whispy interior hence why I showed the comparison as the vase is laid over white also and the colours are to my eye very close.
Someone will attribute it to someone one day.
FB.
-
Can we have a photo taken directly side on in profile from a little distance so we can see the outline profile shape of the foot clearly please?
Sorry, I know that might not help but I am curious :-[
I have to say I am also curious about the height. The PC only shows 9" tall is that right?
And I am sure there is variance but there are other vases on the cat list showing e.g 6 1/2", 6 1/4" . That's quite specific isn't it?
Your piece is about 190mm if I read your post correctly. They were European and so would their mm sizing be more appropriate than the inches? They have a quite a few listed in the catalogue as 190mm.
m
-
I know this doesn't pertain to the cloisonne finish, but I have a large lavender blue Monart vase which I would say has a very glossy shiny finish:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,49400.msg278557.html#msg278557
-
;D
I have heard that there has been a Monart collector - and I do NOT know who, who sent every single bit they purchased to be professionally polished.
I do not know how large their collection is or was, but there is a possibility that that person might be responsible for a lot of over-shiney Monart. I do not know when or where this occurred.
-
I will do some more image of the vase from a distance tomorrow top middle and foot.
Anything that narrows down the possibles and I will measure it again to the mm.
Thanks for all the input it’s all very helpful
FB.
-
Pics as promised.
Let me know if they are what you wanted see
FB
-
I think the shape code is actually 'PC Variant' according to this in the catalogue link
http://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Page04vary.htm
And it does say 'proportions vary'.
Also, if it is surface decorated would someone actually polish it at a later date? Really? I think it must just be a glossy finish? Actually, it doesn't look as though it is 'surface decorated'. Is it intercalaire and cased clear on the outside?
-
I really don't know if the person might have had a surface decorated bit polished.
It's not as if archaeologists in the past have not destroyed old things in primitive attempts to investigate them in the past.
Digging up bones at Stonehenge and them reburying them all in a disorganised mass in a different place without noting where they came from, sort of thing.
Never, ever underestimate human stupidity. :(
-
oh, yes, I forget the human aspect and the need to make perfect ;D
However, question is, is that vase actually surface decorated or is it done intercalaire?
I do think PC Variant is a matching shape.
m
-
Monart would not have had a fine clear layer added after surface decoration.
(I assume that's intercalaire?)
It's not something I've ever seen on a Cloisonne or Paisley Shawl piece.
The surface decorated pieces are far more thin on the ground than (most) of their other output. They were far more work intensive and difficult to produce. Hence the variation in precise measurements, too.
-
It is surface decorated and does not have an outer case in clear.
The surface is not as glossy as the images suggest.Strip lights and the natural light give it that appearance although it’s definitely not dull.
I believe the shape is exactly right.But someone could have copied it.
I believe the colour palette is 42b as shown in the previous comparison images.
The base finish is not what I would expect from a Monart piece hence my Not Monart in my title.
That’s about all I can say at the minute but I’m still looking.
Thanks for the help it is most welcome
FB.
-
the interior picture of a Monart Cloisonne from Scotlands glass just for comparison to the white and rim of the Op's
http://www.scotlandsglass.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1425&Itemid=1#
-
can any form of pontil mark be felt on the vase base? It's difficult to see anything from the photos.
And apologies, I've just seen that a previous poster mentioned the variant PC form.
-
The images there show the "slightly dull shiney" surface very well indeed too.
-
Yes it has that slightly 'pitted' look as though it might be ceramic almost, which isn't how the OP's vase looks.
m
-
ok, some more information here
https://www.ysartglass.com/Ysart/Fake%20Ysart%20Glassware.htm
Under the column for Monart it says:
'Pontil Mark
Large, unless an early piece. Very variable in appearance.'
and
'Polished Ring around Pontil
Yes, unless an early or surface decorated piece.'
With regard to who else might have, I can't think of another maker contemporary to that period as an option to be honest.
It appears to fit the shape variant in terms of foot profile and also the way it curves in to a narrower rim opening.
I suppose a contender could be someone more recent?
-
I'm not particularly worried about the base not being "typical" Monart, not on a surface decorated thing. These were far more variable than any of their other output, as said there, M.
And the glass has ended up being very finely blown towards the base in this particular piece, not that they didn't sometimes try to put a button on finely blown glass- but that does tend to give rise to annealling cracks.
Their facilities were rather primitive. They were experimenting and attempting to produce stuff that would be hard enough to make with modern facilities and current improved metal recipes.
The Ysarts were doing stuff way beyond their time - a forerunner of the Studio Glass Movement.
-
I believe the piece is Durand Moorish crackle glass in a rare colourway.
Another piece was listed as Franz Welz in an identical colour different shape online and the seller has since been informed several times its Durand Moorish crackle glass..
So not a bad outcome and hopefully that’s cleared up the mystery.
Thanks for all the input etc.
FB.
-
There is another piece in the same colourway being sold as Durand Moorish Crackle here:
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/721226579/rare-outstanding-c1920-durand-moorish?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_uk_en_gb_a-art_and_collectibles-collectibles-other&utm_custom1=4bab0a55-efb5-4ab5-911c-e38f72ded554&utm_content=go_325948848_20231914248_88478120328_aud-463075092198:pla-106549150355_c__721226579engb&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkIqtndnE4wIVBLDtCh3FxAybEAYYASABEgL6SfD_BwE
It doesn't look like other pieces of Moorish Crackle online. Do they give a reference source for these pieces please?
m
-
Hi.
I emailed a seller on a certain online auction site that is selling a similar piece iff not the same piece in your link and asked where they got the attribution.
The seller replied that they were getting a lot of offers when it was listed as Welz but were told by some of the people making the offers it was Durand glass from the 30s.
Looking at the base finish on some of the moorish range I can see a lot of similarities with my piece although I have not found this colour as yet.
FB
-
:)
We haven't had any input from any of the real Monart-y folk. Yet. ;D
I've just asked my brother to have a look and comment. He is a serious Monart collector and he says it is Monart.
Both bits. Nothing wrong with either of them, and everything right.
Cloisonne was Monart Ware - early, experimental stuff. ;D
-
:) - Sue by both bits do you mean the OP's vase and the one I linked to on Etsy as well?
Ooh that's good - I was wondering about the shape of the other one but have been distracted looking up something else glassy so didn't check the shape.
m
-
Yup. Absolutely, m. ;D
He's checked both shapes on Frank's site too. They're there.
Even the slightly wonky rim on the etsy one is "right".
They fit in perfectly with the quote you posted.
(crikey, I am chuffed. 8) I was quite convinced it was right at first, then I got scared that there might be somebody else doing things like this, which would be letting hoards of cats out and causing confusion everywhere, until I spoke to little brother this-afternoon.)
-
I would rather the piece was Monart for sure.I love Monart for lots of reasons and to have a nice experimental piece is even better.
I gave up waiting for the Monart peeps to comment.I will go back to that thought then and call the piece Monart.I spent ages searching through Durant glass too.At least I have gained some knowledge there so nothing lost.
Again that’s to you both for helping more than anyone.
FB
-
My brother is a very serious Monart collector. Just ask Frank or either Gary!
I'm very chuffed for you, FB. ;D
-
Yaaaay! We need a clapping hands emoji :)
Very happy for you.
Glad to have found a corresponding colourway and different shape so a double check could be done.
m
-
hi Both.
It’s all sorted then.How very coolio.
It’s a nice piece of glass which is the most important thing but to name it is even better.
Thanks again for all the input etc etc.
FB.
-
Sorry to be a bit of a nuisance, but I am not convinced that this is "all sorted".
On the side of it being Monart, this link goes to a sales site (https://www.vinterior.co/listings/monart-art-deco-vase-label-v1-mf-42-b-c-1930?utm_expid=.blduX1GDSdiCbQGISiMhrg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) showing a piece of Monart, said to have a coded label. The piece has what I think is the same colours as the OPs item, but in a differing pattern and without the crackle.
But I have a query (which may have been addressed earlier but I don't recall it).
Why, in the OPs item is there an apparent pale blue inner layer with the opal (white) casing the blue? What purpose does the pale blue have? Or is it shadow or something?
The same, but in reverse, so to speak, applies to the item M linked to in the etsy site. That piece has a pale blue edging to the rim as if there is an inner opal layer cased in pale blue ... but the pale blue seems not be showing in the crackled surface - just an opal background.
Sue, could you please ask your brother about this?
-
Hi.
It’s just shadow the inner casing is pure white.
Just like the white in a cased Holmegaard gulvase.
Its just an illusion on my vase I can add another image tomorrow to show that.
FB
-
Thanks, FB, that makes me happier and I would agree with folk who think it is genuine Monart.
But it now leaves open for discussion the very similar item that M linked to. Is that pale blue edging to the rim real or not???
-
Hi .
From my perspective to edge colour you talk about is just a coincidence of the blowing where colour has happened to be there when blown.Its colour is exactly the same as the thinner blue colour towards the base on both vases where is has thinned.Its not casing or anything else I just believe it’s where a piece of the blue pigment has blown and it happens to be around the rim.But I’m no glass blowing guru it’s just what I see it as.
And thanks for the input the more the better.
FB
-
Hi.
Inner casing pics as requested/promised.
The shape makes the shadow hard to lose but I think the images show it’s white and not pale blue or opal.In the hand it is very white like the casing as said of a gulvase.
FB
-
I'll ask again about the bluey bit, Kev. :)
I'm sure is just the lighting.
He did say the "wonky" rim was fine.
He said as it is Monart Ware, and early experimental surface-decorated, we should not be expecting the sorts of finishes and accuracy produced later.
It is a bit of an unusual situation to find ourselves with two actual examples of this colourway of Monart Ware Cloisonne at the same time. It's a colourway we've not seen before. And the other colourways don't exactly turn up often.
That is the only thing that gives rise to any possible doubt, to me. If somebody was making things like this now, two could more easily turn up at the same time.
But who on earth could possbly be doing it?
Wouldn't contemporary makers have superior metals to work with? Would that not affect how something turned out?
-
Hi,
I still don't think either of these pieces are Monart - the fact that both are the same colorway and neither have the correct bases makes me think it is more likely another maker. The Etsy piece linked to doesn't look like a Monart shape to me even taking into account the known variations in their pieces, also the way the colours are applied look too "spotty".
Cloisonne was made by Monart throughout production and pieces were also made under the later Vasart label, early Monart pieces were highly irridised caused by impurities in the gas.
Please see a link to a piece on Frank's Ysart glass site for comparison:
https://www.ysartglass.com/extrapics/BlueC01.htm
also link to previous discussion:
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,11333.10.html
and Franks quote "Perhaps I had better issue a recall for the book Ysart Glass, because the book shows several examples of cloissoné decoration and only with pontil buttons"
Also shown is a pic of my Monart cloisonne (uranium) piece with typical pontil button base.
I do hope Frank or someone else comes along to give their opinion soon :)
regards,
Roberta
-
The variation in bases has already been discussed, and given how thinly stretched out the bottom is, it would not have been able to take a button. My brother is sure is it Monart Ware - early and experimental stuff, with inconsistent finishes.
I don't know anything about Cloisonne being made throughout, I was always of the impression it was scarce and tended to be early.
I don't have Frank and Ian's book, so I can't check that.
Both shapes of vase are illustrated on the website.
-
Hi,
Sorry, I can't find the shape of the Etsy vase on Ysart glass.
Also, if you look at the enlarged images of the base picture you can see a pattern like a series of rings - this is not a Monart base. The pieces were given their final shaping held on the punty rod ...
"the end of the rod is dipped into the furnace pot to collect a small gather of glass. This is then pushed against the centre of an unfinished glass object on the blowing iron. The iron is then removed, leaving the object attached to the pontil rod." (extract from Ysart Glass book)
when broken off this leaves the pontil scar or mark, usually just ground smooth in Monart glass.
-
I didn't go searching for the shape but my brother did and he found it. (I'm no good at finding anything in computerland or peering at catalogues.)
No system of storing things is compatible with the way I put things away.
Unfortunately, we haven't got the glass in our mitts to see and feel how it really is.
I do know how pontil rods and the marks they leave, work and how they're treated and why. :-*
A series of rings on the base suggests a mould. I'll go back and peer, and tell my brother to as well.
I've peered - no rings on the base. :)
There are a few around it, on the body, but that's just manufacturing.
-
Is it not shape PC here?
https://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Page04.htm
Under "variations" - it says; proportions vary. ;D
https://www.ysartglass.com/Moncat/Page04vary.htm
-
The Etsy piece is now an eBay piece.
Its really interesting hearing all the views.
There is no mistake that the colour is a match as clearly shown in my comparison images.
The shape is also clearly shown but anyone can copy a shape.
I have always had an issue with the base having no outer ring or polished button but have been told that’s not always the case especially on earlier items.That was news to me.
That’s all I can say.If I knew for definite I would not have posted so I will leave it for the experts to dissect and happily take the views of the majority.
It’s all good either way.
FB.
-
I had to dig around to find the etsy link. (I couldn't find it listed on ebay, but I can't see international stuff for some reason, just ukish stuff. Don't tell me to try a different endy bit on the address. It ignores me and defaults back.)
I see it is still listed, but as Monart, not Durand, and the price has risen considerably too.
And now I've realised I was searching for the wrong shape. I found FB's one.
-
Same sellers.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Outstanding-MONART-CLOISONNE-White-Lilac-Blue-VASE-Code-42b/163785911746?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3D33fd0165cd2641ce8b979abafc5ec7d5%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D163785911746%26itm%3D163785911746%26pg%3D2481888&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A34d83711-ad73-11e9-a227-74dbd1802fce%7Cparentrq%3A1ffa4c9516c0aa416365ef08fffcf353%7Ciid%3A1
-
I've written to ask for where that shape was found in a catalogue. I couldn't find it.
But not everything is illustrated, and I did see a shape which has a variation I know of, but isn't shown. (Shape FI does exist without any flange on top.)
However, the shape we can't find, the etsy one, is not an unusual sort of general vase shape, is it?
-
That ebay/etsy one looks the same shape but just has a neck and rim attached.
Is it a variation?
-
No, I think that would be too much.
Brother thought it might be a QK variant, but is now doubting the sizes. He and his Monart collecting partner both feel this is Monart - by guts, but now you are casting some doubts again, Roberta. ;D
We really want to know what Nigel says. And the Garys.
Brother is going to try to track down some other catalogues, but it may take some time, they're currently in storage. ::)
-
Just for info the Etsy / Ebay one was previously listed as "Czech Bohemian VASE possibly Franz WELZ".
If you look at the etsy listing, the 5th image of the base (you can magnify it too) can anyone else see the rings on the base that look like a mould has been used?
-
Roberta I can see what you see. Except that the rim is fire-polished so I wonder if that effect is optical illusion and I wonder if there is a pontil mark but not visible in the photographs?
Re the Franz Welz. I am absolutely no expert but that wouldn't have been the maker that sprung to mind looking at the shapes and rim finish and decor.
I might have gone 'oooh I see' in my head if someone had said Kralik, because I have seen some pieces attributed as Kralik in a crackle - but again, knowing very little about Kralik, and wondering about the shape of the OP's especially, and that Kralik is badly documented to the open public, I would have filed a question against it in my head.
-
I can see the rings on that pic. We're not imagining it. :)
But I can also see a clear/white blob in the middle which has stretched trails of colour "pointing" to/away from the blob - which looks really rather like the way things "go" around a pontil scar.
And it has the heat finished rim. ;D ??? ::)
(For reference, the etsy link is on page 6 of this thread.)
-
The one online was listed as Welz originally then it was changed to Durand glass USA which is when I emailed them to ask how they knew it was Durand glass.It was stated that they were told by several buyers who were making offers for BIN that it was Durand glass.I then posted this attribution on here as a possible and then we got the Def Monart attribution and now we are where we are.
Maybe I need to post my example to a Monart person so they can handle it and make a more informed opinion.Its all interesting.
FB.
-
Humour me here. Are there any subtle dents or imperfections you can feel roughly half way up the vase?
-
Hi.
No nothing either inside and out.No dimples or imperfections
No signs of anything apart from the surface textures of the piece.All uniform and flowing if that makes sense.
FB
-
John were you thinking a gadget of some sort?
FB is there any indication of a pontil being removed anywhere on the base?
Does it feel completely smooth?
-
hi.
Nothing that I would say is a pontil scar.I have held the vase so many time now I feel like I know every surface crack.There is definitely surface wear to the outer ring which I know can be fabricated but it looks right.
FB
-
Hi folks, late in here.
Sorry but imho it is not Monart. The lack of pontil is clear, but also the technique is just different to that used by the Ysart's.
Colours are Schuster & Wilhelmy/Kügler and widely used even today so do not really any help with ID.
I have seen this before, smaller pieces, but never managed an ID. It is possibly that it was made by Strathearn, Deacons or Chic Young. But Deacons used a pontil rod, not a gadget. Strathearn is most likely if it is Scottish, but not sure if they used Kügler colours.
-
oh Chic Young had occurred to me but I couldn't find anything on searching.
m
-
So not Monart or European but most prob Scottish in origin.
Ok so I think I will wipe the black board clean and start again looking more modern.
Thanks for all the help it’s been good to have a piece worthy of discussion
FB.
-
European is still an option. I think caithness is also a borderline possibility.
-
Would Caithness not be in a catalogue of their wares.Also would Strathearn not have blown the same way as Monart with a rod etc.
I think I’ll stick it in a box for later and come back to it.If it’s made by one of the above bar the European option more will surface with more info.
Thanks again
FB
-
Not yet got ALL the catalogues on SG. But trial pieces would not be in catalogue... and all of their samples were sold at one point.
-
Would Caithness not have been a lot stricter about quality control, even on a trial piece?
I don't think England should be ruled out.
The most non-Monarty thing about it, to me, is simply the garish colour combination. It's just far too much "in your face" with the contrast between the colours and the white background.
Monart tends to be subtle.
-
Hi,
I came across this on an auction site and it reminded me of the vase under discussion - i have no idea if the title is accurate -"Alexander Jenkinson, the Edinburgh and Leith Flint Glass Works" - also "Scottish Venetian" ?? what! But it may be worth a bit of investigation.
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/opusauctions/catalogue-id-opus-a10060/lot-fbe2d79f-78b5-4e05-9b16-aae101264f49
good luck,
Roberta
-
Thanks for the link Roberta. Interesting to look into a bit more from my perspective anyway :)
I just have to reiterate that it really annoys me these sales photos don't include a photograph of the base. What are they hiding? It's a complete pain they don't do this. They wouldn't hide a photo of a base of porcelain or china or whatever.
m
-
Hi again.
The colour palette looks right even if the surface finish is different.The white interior is also right.
I will have a look too to see if anything can be found.
FB
-
The vase at Barnabys auction was "passed" on a previous sale. But a photo of the base was provided (2nd image): https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-us/auction-catalogues/opusauctions/catalogue-id-opus-a10057/lot-af30ae44-1b97-4204-888a-aacd0148b0a3
Maybe the first two images from that link were taken in different lighting conditions? But it seems to be the same vase as in the bright images.
And while I am here, it might be worth a mention that another "E&L" vase is shown in the archives of the National Museum of Scotland - and dated as "late 19th - early 20th century". Hmm, who will be first to suggest that Salvador Ysart gained his inspirations from Edinburgh & Leith? (Or is it already suggested and I have just missed the info?)
-
Thanks for the link Kev.
I'm bemused.
Are these definitely Alexander Jenkinson? How do they have firepolished rims and mold blown base finishes with no pontil mark? Were they stuck up at some point somehow on a gadget holder thing so the rims could be firepolished?
Also I thought Alexander Jenkinson had pontil marks from what I recall of previous discussions.
hmm, I need to look into this more ;D as I'm curious now.
m
-
I always take an auction house attribution with a pinch of salt - I've seen countless number of "Monart" pieces listed which are definitely not Monart, so I'm sure there must be lots of other items wrongly attributed! Occasionally of course, it can work in your favour ! ;)
-
me too :)
Here's a link to some Alexander Jenkinson glass:
http://nms.scran.ac.uk/database/results.php?field=who&searchterm=%22Alexander+D.+Jenkinson%27s+Norton+Park+Glass+Works%22&searchdb=scran&PHPSESSID=4175mghr8o93hnhtsb6dhmscp5
just for curiosity.
-
The colour palette on the plate in your link is the same Flying free.
I did a bit of research last night but didn’t find anything I had not already seen.
FB
-
On the subject of who else makes this sort of thing, there are these from Margie’s Garden. Might not be relevant to the op’s but possibly of interest for future reference: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/208617-caveat-emptor-mystery-cracquelle-vases
Another one: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/197675-margies-garden-handblown-pink-vase
-
Still of the opinion that it is Strathearn.
-
I have a set of vase/ creamer/ jar in this finish which eluded identification for many years until I discovered similar in the glass museum in Madrid. Not able to post pix due to eyesight.
-
Ivo the collection from Museo Nacional de Artes Decorativas is online.
Do you know what the description was and I can try and search for you?
m
-
I have a photo somewhere but just had an eye op so cannot search. Also it is not in the AD but in the San Ildefonso - a vastly superior museum for tech collectors like us.
-
The whole San Ildefonso collection is online at the link to the Museo de Artes Decorativas :)
I've just been through it again and realised I'd already been through it and noted the relevant pieces for my salt and little milchglas bottle re dating.
So it's on the link I have. The museums have made great strides in making searching easier and photographing their collections and uploading them online. Makes me very happy :)
m
-
Can you post a link please
-
The link is on this thread -
https://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,68062.msg400178.html#msg400178
but this might take you to the main search page
https://ceres.mcu.es/pages/
However it does seem as if the site is being very glitchy today. Always the way.
Try this (I've put in some advance search details to try and activate it):
https://ceres.mcu.es/pages/Main
Ok go to advance search in the search buttons and put in Vidrio in Tecnica selection. Then you need to put in each page number at the bottom right!