Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Chris Harrison on July 20, 2007, 06:44:04 PM
-
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7971
15 cm tall, 20 cm diameter.
It has a circular ground and polished punty mark, and shows wear around the edge of the foot. It isn't signed as far as I can tell, though the etched Stuart mark could have worn off.
This seems quite reminiscent of the Stratford series bowl shapes. It has the same stepped rings at the bottom of the bowl where it meets the stem.
The fluorescence isn't stunning, but it's quite evident. And the turquoise really glows in the setting sun.
Can anyone please confirm or deny that it's a Stuart?
Thanks,
Chris
-
It's only uranium if it glows a sickly vivid green. A lot of glass glows in various colors according to it's chemical make-up. Most have no significance for the collector. Some ebay sellers tried to make the selenium orange glow a sales feature but that has died now I think.
It's a nice bowl tho. It seems to want to be Victorian in style but doesn't quite make it. Also I always think of the 50's with this color. I know nothing about Stuart so can't comment on that. Ed.
-
Hi Chris, i have had a few pieces of Stuart, and the mark can sometimes be right on the edge or even only half applied, so it may have been missed completely? anyway there are some here for comparison, although i have to say the stem on your's does'nt look quite right.
www.stylendesign.co.uk/classic/G124.html
But they are very similar.
Edited to add: changed my mide Chris, it look's like the fruit bowl.
-
The number of rings is wrong for Stuart Stratford,
-
OH well, got it wrong again :-[
-
Thanks to everyone for their help.
Hmm, seems like I'm making a half-arsed job of describing what I'm posting. Sorry.
Ed, the bowl glows GREEN under UV, but is a very deep, gorgeous TURQOISE in the light of the setting sun.
Here's another pic from a lower angle, showing the rings better.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7992
To me, this is now the dead spit of the fruit bowl in Sue's link, especially comparing the knops and the dimensions.
Here's another ringed bowl that I'd forgotten about, also unmarked, but also looking to be a piece of Stuart.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7993
-
Looking at the new pic, which now shows the rings in the body of the bowl, the shape looks very poorly defined compared with Stratford. The ones I've had and the pic on the website have very clearly defined steps, not just ridges. Stratford was also made in lead crystal so it should have a really good ring and be heavy for its size. Maybe it is, I'd need to handle it, maybe it's a copy (as in very very similar design rather than fake).
-
Christine, as to Stuart mark's, have you found the same as me, as in some time's they can be very feignt, or on the edge, or even only half applied, so there is a chance that some are not marked?
-
Ta Christine
I'd say that, yes, it's lead crystal and yes, it rings nicely when tapped.
I've just looked at the page from the Stuart catalogue in Andy McConnell's Miller's 20C Glass. There seems to be quite a variation in the rings, depending on the piece.
I've got some of the smaller dessert bowls in clear crystal, and some have more pronounced stepped rings. Also only some of them have the Stuart mark, but some of the signed bowls have pronounced rings and some don't.
Could we just be talking about the natural variation of mould-blown, hand-finished pieces?
Especially since I'd guess that the base of the bowl was moulded first, the stem and foot were applied and finished off manually, and then lastly the rim was opened out and fire-polished, holding the bowl via a punty applied to the foot. The constant returning of a piece to the glory-hole could easily reduce the prominence of the decoration.
Both bowl have a worn ring around the edge of the base, and that could easily conceal any original etched maker's mark.
-
Sounds like Stuart to me then, but it's more likely to contain a high concentration of manganese. which also gives a green glow just not as fluorescent, than uranium
-
I'm glad to see that rescuing this topic from page 2 has sparked some interest.
If there is uranium in it, that would indicate earlier production than I thought, probably pre WWII. I see that the Stuart Stratford line was in production from the 1930's right up to the 70's. Re-tooling of the molds during that time could produce some variation.
I have seen and have items with very faint and/or partial acid marks of various makers and heard of many more instances where an acid stamp should be present but cannot be found. They are often very difficult to find. For example, I have owned several pieces of well used Waterford where finding the stamp, even with loop or magnifier, takes a good 20 minutes or more, even when I have found it previously so I know it's there and roughly where. Base wear can easily obsure it. Ed.
-
Many confuse acid marks with sandblasting which has virtually replaced acid marking as it is much cheaper. This will, in turn be giving way to inkjet printed markings which are currently used in the container industry and bound to cross over to other glassware soon if not already.
Acid marks are smoothly textured and can be continuous designs using a stamp but a stencil could be used. Sandblasted is always stencilled, a quick but not certain give away, but under a glass you will see coarse indents in the surface of the glass. Too early to give guidance on inkjet marks as the technology is developing fast now - but could be etchant, enamels or more likely chemically-bonding epoxy inks that could potentially get confused with acid marks.
Stuart were using sandblasting for signatures for quite a while, often they are very lightly marked and sometimes completely missing. I get the impression they rushed the marking.
Edinburgh Crystal sandblast marks by comparison are invariably more heavily applied. But they certainly left some pieces unmarked, I am told, as a quality issue. But, some of imported EC glass with marks does exhibit poor quality.
-
According to Andy McConnell's book, the earliest items in the Stratford range date from 1921.
I have a Stratford vase that is marked Stuart.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7357
The vase is badly stained and very worn, and the mark is barely visible. Looking at it under a strong magnifier, it seems very smooth and "milky" and doesn't have sharp edges. I'm pretty sure that it's acid etched.