Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Unresolved Glass Queries => Topic started by: paradisetrader on November 09, 2005, 11:33:33 AM
-
Here is my one and only cut glass piece bought as a reference, to teach me how to recognise cut when I feel it and see it and this one sure is sharp.
It would be nice to know something about it as I have been unable to find anything similar despite some exhausive searching.
{Mod: Picture has gone, may be replaced at a later date.
Knowing nothing about cut glass makers I latched onto something written somewhere along the lines that Keith Murray produced some geometric designs for S&W back in the 30's I believe. Reading Bernard's and others comments on that subject in other topics here it seems doubtful I shall ever know but at least it could perhaps be ruled out of that particular little wish.
Thanks
-
Ay it is a nice piece and especially simple - the shape is straightforward conical not curved, and the cuts are as straight as can be - little technical challenge in that. I have a feeling you'd have better luck chasing after Webb patterns than after the elusive KM...
-
Peter,
Try this link which suggests there was a Murray/S&W exhibition at Broadfield House in 2001?
http://www.keithmurray.co.uk/news/index.shtml
Regards,
Marcus
-
Webb...
Very slight similarity to items in the 48005 Richly Cut Pattern (1957) but not close enough. The similarity is in the division into squares but in this pattern only rows differ and apart from the hobnail panels the cutting is of traditional style.
No similar vase shape. But that is only one year.
-
Thanks Marcus
If you remember Frank, about a year ago I asked John Smith at Mallets if all Keith Murray was always signed as insisted at the Keith Murray website. He replied in the negative. Bernard has also said as much in that same topic (above). That's what kept my wishful wanna-be alive but before I got on to Broadfield House and made an idiot of myself I wanted to be a little more sure of the possibilty.
Frank you also noted there noted there that "Parkington had a lot of KM that is not listed in Part II, cannot find Part I. If it is not in there then it went straight to Broadfield House." Donated ?
David Encill frequently points out that Webb is marked. Certainly a lot of it is. Maybe Nigel or Bernard can say if there are pieces which have been reliably ID'd which aren't. This vase is completely unmarked - I have checked many times.
Your date is interesting ....apart from the wish of 30's Marray my thoughts stylistically would be 60's.
The division into squares similarity with that Webb design seems a tenuous link ...........or is it ? I am such a dunce at this sort of glass I really don't know. Thanks for you input anyway.
-
Nice vase - simple and effective.
Reminds me somewhat of a 1937 commemorative vase I have that is of straight sloping form, 30 cm tall, 15 cm diameter at the rim, 1 cm thick. The cut pattern is essentially long vertical oblongs formed from simple mitres with double-mitred banding near the rim. After a lot of looking, I found an almost invisible etched mark on the edge of the foot ...
... "Stuart England".
Just a thought.
-
I had plenty of recognisable Webb that was unsigned. Most went into the Parkington collection. Also had an unsigned Rembrandt Guild as per the Black cased cut to clear one from BGBtW and have seen two or three others unmarked - infact the only marked on of those was the one in the book.
I think a lot of people just say that if a piece is marked in a book, that it is always marked. It certainly made it harder to sell unmarked in pre-internet days.
-
Thanks Kev
Yours is significantly larger - and footed ?
Any chance of a pic ?
This vase is cm - H 20.5 x Dia 12 x 0.5 thickness
Frank
Thank you !
-
Hi All,
I can say quite categorically that NOT all pieces of Keith Murray glass were marked with the facsimalie mark - despite the fact that it is written in a number of places to the contrary.
I sold a number of pieces to Micheal Parkington for his collection, many of which were unmarked, some of which were in the Exhibition referred to above. You will not find any references to these in the Christies sales catalogues, since all the Keith Murray, along with more than 500 other items of glass, was left to Broadfield house Glass Museum by Micheal's wife, Peggy, when she died.
Interestingly, there is currently another thread about a piece of glass marked 'Asprey', with a registration mark. Unlike that situation, where the shop, Asprey, required there own mark to be put on by the manufacturer, on many other occasions shops (like Liberty's) specifically asked for the manufacturer to leave any identifying marks OFF. This most certainly applies to Keith Murray's work. I currently have some 20 or so pieces of researched and identified Murray that all have pattern numbers fully attributed to them - only 2 have an acid ecthed mark.
Now to the piece in question. Many factories used the bucket/beaker/tumbler form, so that is not something that can be used as a pointer to Murray specifically. In my opinion the pattern of cutting is not synonimous with any of the styles of cutting that can be readily associated with Keith Murray.
To me the pattern appears more likely to be by Webb & Corbett or Thomas Webb & Sons. However, I must stress that is an opinion based purely on gut instinct.
Frank is right that many pieces by Webb seem not to be marked, however this can be true of other factories too, for instance S&W and indeed Webb & Corbett to a lesser degree.
Unlike Frank, pretty well all Rembrandt Guild pieces that I have seen have been marked.
Nigel
-
Rembrandt Guild pieces that I have seen have been marked.
Nigel
I wonder how many were original marks though! I do know that there was an effort being made to mark these as I was asked if I wanted mine marked by someone at Portobello market. I was very tempted as I was getting silly offers for it but I did resist and did eventually sell it too cheaply.
-
Firstly, this is now becoming a new thread.
Whilst I certainly don't claim to be aware of everything dubious to do with remarking/marking glass I do try to keep abreast of these things. I have never heard of this particular mark being reproduced before now.
When you received the offer Frank, did you see a finished version of the Rembrandt Guild mark - or was it just an unlikely boast made by the person who made the offer?
There have been a number of trademarks that I have seen over the years that have claimed to be fulproof, but of course they were quite detectable in the cold light of day. These include Venini and Keith Murray.
I have a strong suspicision that the Rembrandt mark would have been singularly unsuccessful had you taken this person up on their offer. It is after all, both complex and small. I doubt very much whether it would have been undetectable, particularly with the technology available in those days.
A simple, and usually successful (but not of course fulproof), guide to whether or not you are buying an item with a fake mark is its cost. If an item from the twentieth century is cheap for what it is, then IN ALL PROBABILITY it is unlikely to have a fake mark - after all you even allude to the fact that you could have charged a larger amount for your piece. It would not be viable to have it marked and then sell it cheap.
The majority of the pieces that I have seen with the mark have been eminently buyable. The ones that have not been cheap, I was aware of their 'pronenance'.
Since you did not take up the offer and IF you didn't see another piece that had this particular fake mark placed on it's base, then I feel it is a little rash of you to suggest that many Rembrandt pieces could bear fake makes.
Nigel
-
The offer was made by someone that could probably have done it. I saw two or three others without the mark, but never handled one with the mark.
If such a mark is detectable or not I dont know, but you need a certain example for comparison and hey are not exactly common pieces. To do it in the first place you would need an original to copy too.
I have seen a piece of glass that was used to practice various etched signings on and illustrate a piece of Monart which I suspect was used in this way. Of course with Monart it is a little pointless as very little was marked. But on this example they look to sloppy. But how can one tell!
It is the last of the Monart marks here http://www.ysartglass.com/BaseLabel/Labels.htm
Then look at some of the discussions on GMB about signatures that have been held in suspicion yet turn out to be perfectly OK.
I consier it a minefield and as has been said so often on these boards, a signature is no guarantee of identification. A good fake is never uncovered.