Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Angela B on July 17, 2007, 06:08:01 AM
-
Can somebody help Marinka Bozzec and I identify the black hand vase shown in this picture
http://www.glassencyclopedia.com/2handvases.html
The clear frosted vase is design registration number 280197 registered in 1873 by John Derbyshire of Salford, Manchester, England. However, it is not the same vase as the black one which has a ribbed cuff and a different pattern around the base. A similar one to the black one is shown in Cyril Manley's book on page 102, and he says it has a "large and spidery" J. Derbyshire & Co. trademark. But this black one, which belongs to Marinka Bozzec, does not appear to have any marks.
It would be really good if somebody can tell us the registration number or confirm that they have seen one with the Derbyshire trademark
-
Angela — This question has been on the boil for at least twenty years, with no-one any closer to a solution. I don't trust Manley's book — he was of that generation of so-called experts to whom "Don't know" was not a valid option, which makes it very difficult to distinguish between fact and informed guesswork (fiction), as they don't usually tell you how they arrived at their conclusions. Fortunately there are only a few of these experts left, mostly in the second rank of auction houses, and they are rapidly going extinct.
Derbyshire could have had two moulds, but a different glass house is more likely, as I don't know of any other Derbyshire pattern with two nearly identical moulds, which indicates to me that they looked after their moulds with considerable care. I don't think it has been established whether Derbyshire's registration was enforceable, as hand vases were made in other materials, and we don't know which came first.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Thanks Bernard, I hadn't realised it was such a long-standing issue.
There is a very similar-looking vase by Percival Yates and Vickers shown on page 47 of Jenny Thompson's book (Rd no. 284031). It doesn't have a hand, it has a fish. But the top looks similar to Marinka's black vase. Not that that proves anything, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
-
Hi Angela,
many thanks for posting about this vase. It is a real mystery!
I checked it again for marks & there are none whatsoever.
The style is obviously English & Northern, but after looking through my copy of the Hajdamach book's chapter on pressed glass, it could have been from any one of the many major & lesser-known factories.
The body of the vase has a distinctive pattern all over it, like leaves. The black glass is incredibly dense, it's blacker than any black glass I have ever seen. Black is also a very rare colour for hand vases.
This is a rare hand vase, the only one of this exact mould shape I have encountered. The only other one I have seen is pictured in the Manley book, & that one is clear frosted flint glass.
Any information regarding this vase would be greatly appreciated, as I need an attribution for both my article for the Glass Museum online & my forthcoming book on hand vases.
-
Perhaps the black is a clue. If it is so dense and dark it might be hyalith. If it is hyalith, who made it apart from Freiderich Eigerman and Colonel Bucquoy, both Czechoslovakia? Or who else made anything similar?
-
Thompson p41 shows both Derbyshire pieces that have close lookalikes, the hand vase and the "spell" (spill) vase of April 28, 1876. The nearly spell vase is often seen in hard opaque white. This one's been ticking along for 20 years or more with no solution as well!
Solve one of these and there is a good chance that you've solved the other.
Christine — All the polished and matt black versions of these two styles of vase I have seen have been in amethyst glass, but you often need a very intense light to see it.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Here are some of the differences between the two hand vases. You can see these differences, of course, but I just wanted to summarise them:
1: the Derbyshire (clear frosted) vase has 24 points around the rim. The black (unidentified) one only has 12.
2: the Derbyshire vase is quite fat all the way down, whereas the other is shaped into quite a narrow wrist.
3: the Derbyshire vase has leaves and bulrushes whereas the other has just different kinds of leaves.
4: the Derbyshire vase has a simple looped pattern cuff, the other has a ribbed collar around the wrist with a fancy pattern of lines and dots around the cuff.
5: the Derbyshire frosted vase has shiny fingernails, and I can't tell whether the frosted version of the alternate vase (shown in Manley's book on page 102) does, but I think not.
Does anyone have access to old catalogues of the Manchester and Salford glassworks from the 1870s or 80s?
-
I can solve this very long running mystery and confirm that Cyril Manley was correct and that both hand vases were John Derbyshire and I should be able to add some pictures later.
Roy
-
I have only just come across this topic & was disapointed to see it hadnt been firmly resolved, as Bernard C states its been an ongoing query for many years. I was as equally disapointed by the unwarranted criticism of Manley's book on Victorian Glass. There is no doubt he did make mistakes, though probably no more than Slack did in his book. It should be remembered that these were the days before the internet, when research involved a lot more than adjusting the height of your computer chair and information was in many cases collected by word of mouth from factory workers. I do however think we should be grateful to all of the authors of that time, no matter what their faults, who without benefit of hindsight, brought the beauty of glass to our attention. The small group of people who continue to 'knock' Manley are diminishing, perhaps in the meantime we should be grateful for his efforts.
-
Bernard is no longer with us.
I have also been critical of Manley's book.
To put the record straight,it is remembered that Manley's book was written in the days before the internet. It is acknowledged that he publicised glass collecting and made great efforts to bring it to the fore as a collectable and to document some of it's history.
And it is acknowledged in more than one thread on here, that he would probably have loved the Glass Message Board and the opportunity to discuss glass with those who also love glass as he did. And I am sure he would have loved the access to information that the internet affords,but that was not available when he was writing his book.
However, because of when the book was written, and that at the time there was a lack of opportunity for him to garner original source references, there are numerous incorrectly identified pieces in his book on Victorian Glass. And so for the time we are in now, whilst I have the book and do use it often to see what he might have said, I would never buy it in order to use it to identify glass.
That does not take away from the fact that it is a lovely book with great glass in it. But it does mean that if others use it to identify glass, then many pieces may be incorrectly identified ... and that is a problem when it comes to someone selling glass on the basis of an incorrect identification of a piece that has subsequently been correctly id'd as another maker. It's a problem because it muddies waters again, and because it might be mis-representation. It may also garner the seller an enormous sum of money, by them mis-representing who the item was actually made by ... thus leaving an unsuspecting buyer with perhaps an item that is worth considerably less than they paid for it even allowing for market forces.
I am not denigrating the work that went into producing the book. But in my opinion I would not use it as a reference source.
m
-
I fully understand and agree with what you say....
I would in his defence say that he does make it clear that the photos/identification should be used 'in conjunction' with the written work of his book in order to fully identify an item.
That doesnt mean that he didnt make mistakes but its suprising how many people look at a photograph and take it as gospel that if they have an item the same as that pictured, then it must be as identified in the book, instead of double checking the written work to prove the point. I would also add that an identifiction on an internet web site (commercial mainly but not specifically) is also no gurantee that the webowner got it right.
In the past 30 years I have noted that critisim of his mistakes is rarely given with any understanding and is usually quite harsh, I wonder how many of those who do critise at some time purchased an item based purely on the photo in his book without considering other factors. Also the same degree of critism is rarely leveled at other authors of glass guides who were equally as guilty.
Perhaps I am being a little sentimental in that his was one of the first books I purchased that brought me into the wonderful world of glass .... or maybe I should blame him for still being here 30 years later LOL Happy New Year
-
with hindsight and the natural improvement in our knowledge, it's very easy to criticize almost anyone and anything in the literature - I dare say there hasn't been a book published that with the passing of time has been found to be free of errors entirely. The world has changed in the last three or four decades, and those of us now using the worlds vast store of instantly accessible information don't understand the limitations some of the earlier authors had to live with, before the proliferation of more accurate records............... and it's very true that somewhere along the line someone had to start the ball rolling and do the spade work to give us at least some beginnings. It seems to be a failing of human nature to criticize rather than be constructive.
In the absence of any further comments post 30th June 2015, it would be of interest to at least know why Roy's belief that he'd solved the problem ground to a halt........... ??
-
Perhaps he found some information ..........in an old book !!! :D
-
'It seems to be a failing of human nature to criticize rather than be constructive.'
or perhaps a failure to recognise constructive criticism? :)
'I wonder how many of those who do critise at some time purchased an item based purely on the photo in his book without considering other factors'
In turn, I wonder how many people sold items purporting to be some 'rare' piece produced by some English maker and garnering themselves large sums of money for their time, only for the buyer to become aware years later that the piece was e.g. a mass produced 1930s piece of Bohemian glass worth a tenth of the value they paid for it?
I have seen many items that are unmarked but claim to be Stevens and Williams or Thomas Webb, with absolutely no primary reference to support those claims.
And in my opinion I think that is a problem. I think it devalues the glass market as a collectable market. And it cheats the buyer if the item transpires to have not been the rare, beautifully made piece they were sold.
Basically it is important that buyers are not misled... by using incorrect reference sources which appear to add validity to an incorrect attribution.
The big problem with the book is that there appear to be numerous incorrectly identified items. Not just the odd one (which does happen in other books - and I certainly have a French book that I don't use as a reference any more because again, there are numerous errors which means it's difficult to be sure which items really are correct). This means that unless you are very au fait with glass you wouldn't know how to pick out the errors. And even if you are au fait with glass,there are certainly items in the Manley book that I have no idea whether or not he is correct, but something has made me question the item.
I'm not sure I understood the point you made here:
' I would also add that an identifiction on an internet web site (commercial mainly but not specifically) is also no gurantee that the webowner got it right.'
Were you saying that other people also get it wrong? so that makes it even stevens?
I agree with your comment above, but that doesn't make it ok that the Manley book is used as a reference source.
Or were you saying that without a primary reference source then it could be concluded that Manley 'might have been right'?
Yes, you could argue that without primary reference sources to support each and every item in query, then one could say 'but it could be right', however I think in the case of many of the items in the book, there is more than one reason why they are thought to be, or indeed are, by other makers. Or are in question.
Therefore in my opinion it's a lovely book and a 'good to have' but it's not a book that should be used as a reference source.
m
-
One only has to look at the Art Market to see how so called experts 'get it wrong' ... or perhaps in some cases deliberately mislead. It happens in all walks of collectable life not just in glass.
The point I was trying to make regarding glass reference websites is (a bit like wikipedia), many people mistakenly belive if its on a 'reputable' website it must be right .... in fact some people belive if anythign is on the internet it must be right.
We may be looking at this from different perspectives in that your reference to Manleys book woudl appear to be mainly on Art Glass/Blown Glass, whilst I do love all glass my own preference has always been for Victorian 'high end' pressed glass and perhaps the reason for my dissapointment with the critism of Manleys book is that there were other 'major' books on Victorian Pressed Glass at the time which made as many mistakes as Manley, but critisim of those was almost like attacking the Holy Grail.
I fully agree with you that I would not use Manleys book as an absolute reference, however I still feel we owe him a debt for introducing Victorian glass to us.
All the best
-
It's an unfortunate fact that the internet has gained a bad reputation when it comes to provenance/attribution of 'old things' (probably all old things) - which isn't a situation that should exist, and is an irony in any case, in view of the mostly reliable available literature published in the last twenty five years.......... but that's to ignore human nature, again.
Outside of those (like us perhaps) who have a genuine interest in the history and aesthetics of our past, there are many on the internet who flout
any sense of accuracy to simply make a quick profit - so yes, I'd agree that electronic communication has severely dented the reliability of buying on line. Auction houses are little better .............. another source of history where the common denominator is profit and not accuracy.
Remember the incident earlier this year with a well know Midlands auction house who seem to have been ready to put their lives on the line over a certain 'T/Webb' attribution - and I never did hear back from them - which would appear to support the comment ... "with absolutely no primary reference to support those claims."
The internet seems to have been a heaven sent vehicle for those who have little or no interest in historic accuracy.
Is there a valid argument to say..... "this is my living and I can't afford the time to check details or acquire all the books necessary to find the correct attribution/provenance." - probably not, but the tide is too powerful now to stop, sadly.
Visit most 'antiques' fairs/markets these days and you can almost count the genuine antiques on the fingers of one hand - in fact I'm often the oldest thing there!
I understand that some original pressed glass moulds have been re-used (particularly on the other side of the pond??) - and are these modern pressings sold as being not antique?? - I suspect not.
quote .................... "or perhaps a failure to recognise constructive criticism? :)" .......... I could be way off beam m, but if this comment was aimed at Manley's effort, then I don't think it's really appropriate in the context of all that we're saying now............ no doubt that in the late 1970s - and earlier - when he was compiling his book, there was little opportunity for external eyes to criticise his words, in the way this might happen now. It's probably only been in the last twenty years that the errors have come to light - the GMB wasn't around when Manley might have needed us ;).
I wouldn't part with my copy - the pix are great, and it was his book that helped me with the history and attribution for the uranium Derbyshire goblet (item 354) - see page 37 - long before I was a habitual visitor to Kew ........... this piece is now I think with another Board member.
In his acknowledgments, Manley doesn't mention using what we now know as the National Archives at Kew (they were then the Public Record Office), and information was vastly more difficult to access............ and just think of the level of conversation his work has generated, so can't have been all bad. ;)
-
Thanks for your welcome comments Paul.
Positive Identification has and will continue to be an area of discussion/argument and in some cases the publication of discovered catalogues can create its own problems. I recall (too many years ago) a case of the covered sugar with 2 dogs as handles and a cat as the pommel on the lid. Clearly shown in Davidsons Cat of about 1885 I think. I had in my possesion at the time a German catalogue showing the same item produced in Germany in around 1880 (this applied to a few of Davidson patterns as well. Despite the possibility of conflict, many 'reputable' dealers refused to accept that the one they were selling could be anything but Davidsons ("....... see its there in the catalogue"). I guess that it depends on which side of the table you are standing. Anyway lets be honest its the search for the 'genuine' article that keeps us all interested, if it was clear cut (the identification, not the glass) then it would be too easy and I suspect we woudl find another area of collection.
All the best
-
:)
To be honest, I was referring to that fact that some might view any criticism of Manley's book on Victorian Glass as being made with mean intentions, rather than seeing it as constructive criticism, i.e. the manner in which it is intended.
Billben, I understand more clearly the point you are making, after you expanded here:
'... my dissapointment with the critism of Manleys book is that there were other 'major' books on Victorian Pressed Glass at the time which made as many mistakes as Manley, but critisim of those was almost like attacking the Holy Grail.'
and also in your post directly above this one.
I don't collect pressed glass so I've no idea about other titles on that but I think it is acknowledged on the board that catalogues are a good source on the research trail, but not a primary source of reference in the same way that pattern books would be.
I think pressed glass has many more id hoops to jump through than blown glass because of copies and moulds being sold etc.
However identifying any antique glass is always difficult. That's the joy and fun of collecting glass :)
(But not if it is being used arbitrarily and deliberately to profit from a mis-identification).
This current thread might explain what I've been trying to say about misuse of misidentification a little better:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,60722.msg359165.html#msg359165
The seller of the piece in the last post in that thread has a title for selling the piece that doesn't reflect the information given at the bottom of the large body of text they have supplied.
Caveat emptor.
m
-
My memory is not as good as it used to be . Although only 18 months or so ago I seemed to remember buying the same hand vase. If I posted that I could solve the mystery hand vase it must have meant that the one I bought was marked.
I been looking through 1000's of pictures but cannot find the vase yet , I will keep looking. Why I did not post pictures at the time I am not sure.
Marinka may be able to help as I am pretty sure I contacted her at the time. I remember selling the hand vase which may have been to Marinka so she may hold the final answer unless I find find the pictures I took at the time.
Roy
-
many thanks Roy - just think folks, we might be teetering on the edge of a real breakthrough to a problem that has puzzled us for decades...........
sitting here with bated breath Roy............. ;D
P.S. oh, and wanted to thank those Board members who have posted their good wishes for 2017 - and to whom I return the compliment. Mostly I'd like to be 39 again, but I guess can't turn the clock back 10 years - just too much I suppose ;) :-*
-
Hi Paul
I Cannot find the pictures of the hand vase I had . I know it was sold to Marinka and it was a frosted example of the black unmarked one. Looking back through my emails it was identical in every way except for the rim . Marinka's black hand had 12 rim points whereas the frosted marked example I sold had 14 rim points, but I believe the rest was identical.
Hi Roy, I was so pleased to win this - it will make a great companion for the black vase that is a mystery no more! Regards, Marinka
Roy
-
Now ... who would like cream with the Humble Pie ? ;)
-
In the interest of being fair and giving reasons for my comments on this thread, and to demonstrate my reservations over using the Cyril Manley book as a reference source, I have looked at some of the pieces in the book on a 'flicking through' basis rather than a 'deep research on each item' basis, and these are my thoughts.
The items I mention below are not exhaustive. They are just the pieces where I recall having seen id queries raised on over the years. There are other pieces where for me, my gut instincts would query their identification enough to ensure I researched further, and also
I don't recognise many of the items in the book so obviously cannot know whether they are correctly identified by him. This is not helped by the fact that his photographs were taken against a black background making identifying features nearly impossible to see on some of them.
So I believe I recall there being reservations over the following items -
numbers 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 - where they have been id'd as Richardson's and where I think they have been subsequently id'd as Kralik
(Plus 14,15 where they may not be English, but possibly Bohemian imho)
35 which has been identified via a pattern drawing as Harrach iirc
57 which has been identified as Loetz iirc
63- This has been id'd in the book as Richardson but I think there is a query over this being either Bohemian or French possibly
101 - my question - I saw this up for sale at auction but have not been able to confirm this is definitely Stevens and Williams?
102 - my question - is this really a Frederick Carder piece? I would have thought it was Bohemian - there are a number of yellow and white 'flagged' decor pieces believed to be from Bohemian makers but I'm not sure they have been sifted and maker id'd yet.
179 - Id'd as Thomas Webb, but I think this has been id'd as Kralik
187 Id'd as Thomas Webb but I believe this is a Stuart vase
192 - Id'd as Thomas Webb but I think this has been identified as Kralik
That is just a quick run through without doing any further research.
I haven't looked closely at the others.
So do you see the problem? There are some magnificent pieces of glass in the book, of that there is no doubt. And it is entirely probable that many are correctly identified.
But since a number of queries have been raised over time, it does make it extremely difficult to use this as a reference source in my opinion.
For British Glass references I would use Charles Hajdamach's British Glass (both volumes) and Mervyn Gulliver's Victorian Glass.
I hope this helps.
I do not know anything about pressed glass so cannot comment on whether or not there are mis-identifications in that section of his book.
I don't know who your comment above was directed to, if anyone, but I hope the above helps explain my comments :)
m