Glass Message Board

  There is a host of other convincing data to attribute these bottles to Stiegel. It is this notion: "that pocket bottles with overscale floral designs were made on the continent  BUT THERE IS NO KNOWN COROLLARY FOR THE DIAMOND-DAISY MOTIF, AND IT APPEARS TO BE A UNIQUELY AMERICAN DECORATION". Now debunked? Absolutely new information.  This bold statement has been glass gospel for the last thirty years and still propagated to this day. Someone is not doing their homework. You may be pleasantly surprised if you go to this link museumcollection.winterthur.org/ingex.php#.Y1cHFS2ZP1x and enter Stiegel in the search bar in the glass section.

  I think making your cullet as a separate batch unusual and a extra expenditure of time and materials. Possibly " fugitive" ingredients would be fired out or at least stabilized. Probably unnecessary if you have enough of your formula on hand as cullet [glass rejects, etc.]. It was customary to buy outside cullet in this country as they were not in the business of making cullet. By and large this seemed to have worked well in general practice. A large batch using an oxide  somewhat difficult to attain you may not want to take the chance.

  A footnote in a glass club bulletin from 2012 concerning dating of American canary glass contains this statement: "Bohemian glass scholar Olga Drahotova claims that "yellow and gold uranium glass was introduced both in the Reidel and Harrachs Glassworks in northern Bohemia, and in the Sumova mountains in southern Bohemia, almost simultaneously". BOHEMIAN GLASS,1400-1989, p. 69. The authors use of the term 'claims" in this instance seems to minimize Olga's statement. I was wondering what you think.

It might be, and I think the fact the rim is curved outwards on the bowl must have made it more complicated and difficult to engrave upon because of the angle. However the goblet is  also engraved by someone different I am pretty sure(the crown details are completely different) and it's impeccably engraved by comparison to the crown on the uranium bowl and ice plate.
Also the plate was flat - no difficulty on size or angle on that piece and yet the crown is engraved with the same details as the bowl.
There is a vast difference in quality of the engraving of the crown I think .
Also there is a lovely rose on that goblet in comparison to the flowers on the plate.  It's interesting to compare style.

The more I look at the uranium bowl the more I think it is likely it was produced as a cut piece designed with just the cutting,  and then later engraved with the garland and  later still with the crown and part City arms.

I am no expert but to me the garlands on the bowl look to have been engraved by a good engraver.  The crown and City arms look to have been by someone different. And the fact the arms are incomplete makes me think there wasn't room to add them to an already existing design.

Sasaki if I remember well.

I have a set of 6. All marked the same.  They are 8-1/2" (21.5cm) tall.  I thought the H may be Heckert but I can't find another example marked this way.









Im not sure why the link isn't working from here.  Its been a while since I posted to glassmessages.

Scaling off the photographs and using the declared object heights, I reckon the crown on the goblet is about twice the size as that on the uranium bowl, so much easier to engrave the detail.