Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Leni on February 27, 2008, 12:20:08 PM
-
Here are my latest pieces. I particularly like the amber one! I've never seen one of these in amber before :D
The opal flower (pic 3) is very similar to another I have (pic 4) Does everyone agree they are related? Any ideas of who they might be by (other than generic 'Stourbridge'?)
-
Nice ones :mrgreen: :mrgreen: No idea though
-
Lovely items, number 2 looks like the man eating plant from the film 'Little shop of horrors' ;D
Andy
-
Yep! That's why I call them all 'Audrey', Andy! ;) ;D
-
They are fabulous, Leni!
Congratulations on your great finds. :clap:
"Generic Stourbridge" is a great term, & probably entirely accurate! ;D
-
Leni — cf Gulliver p91 bottom left and p93 bottom right, both Walsh mother of pearl (not here the modern American collectors' term for air-trap), although the opal flashing has almost disappeared on the first. I suspect Gulliver was reluctant to attribute the first to Walsh because of S&W 403585 (seaweed trails), and because he had not seen an example with stronger opal flashing like the one I had a year or so back.
Anyway check the feet. As you will see they are the same style and methodology and match the rest of your thorn vases. I believe Walsh made a goodly proportion of these vases, possibly most or even all of them. Certainly your latest acquisitions demonstrate innovations in colour that are typical of what we know about Walsh.
Also note that the seaweed trails on the cornucopia are a different glass to the feet. Evidence that two chairs were involved, one making the vase and the other the feet, timed so that the two were ready for joining together at the same moment. I think this applies to all your thorn vases. I've seen this at Formia — it's like a beautifully choreographed ballet.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Thank you, Bernard! :-* :hug: And I thought I'd searched my 'Gulliver' thoroughly! ::)
BTW, have you got Mervyn Gulliver's new book(s)? I've got 'Designs from the West Midlands' but am saving up for the other(s). I understand from Mr Gulliver that the publishers wouldn't let him do a revised edition to include his latest researches, so he has had to produce the books himself, which is why they are so expensive :( Still, of course I HAD to get it! (Them!) ;)
-
How can you get hold of these new books please?
-
Hi Leni,
of course! id forgotten the plant was called Audrey!
Silly me
Andy ;)
-
More books by Mr. Gulliver?
I want them too! How do I get my paws on them?!!
I recall that in the introduction to "Victorian Decorative Glass" that he mentions that this is the first in a series of books.....that was in 2002, & I was wondering when his new books would eventuate!
-
I bought my copy from Mervyn Gulliver himself (and he signed it! ;D ) at the last National Glass Fair at Gaydon. I don't know if he is going to be at the next fair, but I hope so! :D Other than that, I wouldn't know how to get hold of a copy! But his email address is given in the book, so perhaps it might be possible to email him and order one? If anyone is interested, I could email him and ask him if he would be happy for me to give out his email address. (I don't see why not, since he put it in the book, but I'd like to ask, anyway.) Or maybe he could be asked to bring copies to Gaydon for those who want one?
I warn you though, they are expensive. I paid £45 for the smaller book and I think the larger one was about £60 :o They are spiral-bound, not 'proper' books, because Gulliver was unable to get the publisher to do a revised edition and had to do them himself, and of course he hasn't the economies of scale of a large publishing house! What a pity! >:(
-
I'd like to raise a point of detail regarding the comparisons Bernard has made to the items in Gulliver's Victorian Decorative Glass, British Designs 1850-1914.
Leni's first vase shown, with the wonderful amber inner colouring, has feet with opalescent "thorns". The other vases have, as far as I can tell, smooth surfaces to the "root feet". The page 91 and 93 items that Bernard compared to are of the smooth feet variety. Even taking due account of the point about known use of colouring at Walsh, could the differences in smooth and "thorned" feet suggest another maker?
I realise that in the book and on some of Leni's items, there are some with "thorns" on the body but not on the feet, so it shows that the same maker produced both varieties. I also know that some items with seemingly smooth "root feet" do have one or two "thorns" (I have an example).
But, are "thorns" important for making comparative attributions? If not, what exactly is it about the feet on Leni's items that suggest they are the same as some Walsh items in the book?
-
Kevin — Thanks, an oversight, as I had meant to exclude Leni's first vase, which is quite different.
As for all the other feet, they are made in two parts, each with three or four legs, sandwiched together with an offset, so that you end up with usually six or sometimes eight legs in all.
I don't know whether this technique was Walsh, Stourbridge College, or more widely known. What I do know is that the only fully attributable examples of these feet I have found are the two I cited in Gulliver and very similar pieces, all of which are unmistakably Walsh. I've been looking for examples with definite attribution to other glass houses for over two years, and I have not found a single example.
I believe that the longer I keep looking unsuccessfully, the more likely that this style of foot is a Walsh exclusive. Whether you accept this argument or not depends on your willingness to accept statistical evidence. It has its weaknesses, but I believe that it cannot be ignored.
How much do you use statistics and probability in the analysis of canes of millefiori paperweights?
Bernard C. 8)
-
Good point, Kev. I did not think Bernard meant to include the first one. In fact, the amber one is rare in my collection for more than its colour, in that it appears to be one of the only ones I have in which the 'thorns' appear to be dots of opalescent glass applied afterwards, as opposed to the 'pull-out' thorns on most of the others!
As well as the similarities in the feet on these 'triffids', the 'trumpet' on my two (possibly) related opal flowers would both appear to be blown into a very similar ribbed mould. Of course I realise this doesn't mean they are necessarily from the same glasshouse, but ... (On the other hand, so was the amber one :-\ :huh: )
However, I talked to Mervyn Gulliver at Gaydon last year about the difficulties of identifying this sort of item, and whether it was possible to narrow down the makers from the 'Generic Stourbridge' I mentioned above ;) Mr Gulliver felt that even similarities like impressed prunts and rigaree could not be used to separate one maker from another, as most of the glasshouses in the area would have had the same tools for working glass - often made by the same tool-makers!
Aaaarrrggghhh! :hb2:
-
... the first one ... is rare in my collection for more than its colour, in that it appears to be one of the only ones I have in which the 'thorns' appear to be dots of opalescent glass applied afterwards, as opposed to the 'pull-out' thorns on most of the others! ...
I disagree, Leni, I think they are pull-outs (to use your terminology) like all the others, it's just that the glass is canary opalescent rather than plain canary.
What is the amber of the flute cased in? Clear opalescent, canary opalescent, or something else?
Bernard C. 8)
-
Gosh Bernard, you're right, of course! :D I've looked again and the 'thorns are indeed 'pull-outs'! :spls: It's just that they are really very long and all have gone quite 'white'.
The amber flute is cased in a thin layer of the yellowy-green uranium glass. It's not visible in normal light, but under UV the whole thing looks bright green - the amber doesn't show up at all!
(BTW, Is 'Canary Opalescent' the correct term for it? I always think of that as being an American expression - Fostoria, or Dugan rather than Stourbridge. I tend to just say 'uranium' rather than 'vaseline' (having been told off many times by Peter :-[ ;) ) But I really should know the correct terms, shouldn't I? ::) )
-
Bernard, thanks for the additional info. I had not known of the two-part "sandwiching" process of making the feet. I will keep an eye out for that.
My own example that has the one or two "thorns" on otherwise smooth "roots", and which is a very bright uranium green, is made with a horizontal central length to which have been added five feet, two upright opalescent "thorned" tube flower holders and an upright "thorned" something. The central part has an added, but not too clear, prunt to cover the punty mark.
I agree with the general thoughts on statiscal evidence, but that is a subject I do not understand too well. (I have a book on statistical analysis but never got past the first few pages!). How much do you use statistics and probability in the analysis of canes of millefiori paperweights?
What I use is more akin to "awareness of common detail across items as I have personally examined". It is one of the reasons that I always like to include words such as, "possibly, maybe, likely" in much of my comments.
-
I would love to see a picture of your example, Kevin! Would you post a picture? :D
-
Main view (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9254)
Base showing (more or less) construction of feet (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9253)
The prunt (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9252) (which was previously (and rightly) described by Leni in another message as "not very clear")
-
... Is 'Canary Opalescent' the correct term for it? I always think of that as being an American expression - Fostoria, or Dugan rather than Stourbridge. I tend to just say 'uranium' rather than 'vaseline' ...
Leni — "Canary" was used by Kempton in 1886 and 1887 in very successful Pottery Gazette full-page advertisements for their trumpet vases, making it clear that the term was established and in common use by the glass trade across all six continents by then. Indeed it is the ONLY contemporary and universal term for yellow glass I have found, all the others being either glass house specific (like Sowerby's Gold) or modern collector terminology (like Uranium and Vaseline). See Timberlake pp62–63.
... My own example that has the one or two "thorns" on otherwise smooth "roots", and which is a very bright uranium green, is made with a horizontal central length to which have been added five feet, two upright opalescent "thorned" tube flower holders and an upright "thorned" something. The central part has an added, but not too clear, prunt to cover the punty mark. ...
Kevin — Difficult to see from the photographs, but it looks like a modified six-legged sandwich foot to me.
Bernard C. 8)
-
I have added another photo ... just the feet parts (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9276).
This was done by taking a non-flash image, using a "daylight" desktop lamp. The glass was first treated with talc to find and highlight the edges of the joins of each element. The item was placed on a black surface (old ski-jacket!) to minimise the "transparency" of such a bright green glass. Even so, some white of reflected light is still visible where there are additional "ridges" in the glass as a result (presumably) of tooling rather than what might alternatively have been such as "mould lines".
Because of the white reflected highlights, I then changed the talc lines to a dark blue to give good contrast against the yellow-green. I also blurred the areas that are not feet (or the prunt) to remove distraction of the opalescent flower holder tubes.
So, does the result make it any clearer on the method of constructing this piece?
-
Thanks, Kevin. Yours looks very much like a complete version of my broken triple, shown here http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-5792
Are the opalescent trumpets a completely different glass from the 'stem' and feet? Are they uranium glass or not? I am always surprised at the different combinations of glass used in these 'rustic' or 'thorn' pieces! And also how some parts which looks as if they are not uranium glass actually glow very brightly, showing that they must be cased in uranium - both the amber and the cranberry example in my latest pictures look totally green under UV, with not trace of the colour showing through! :o
Bernard, I think my problem with the term 'Canary' is that I don't really see this glass as yellow, but as a lime green - it doesn't look much like a canary at all to me (although I'm not familiar with that many canaries ::) :D )
-
Yes Leni - they are very much alike. Perhaps we each have one item from a full multi-piece set? Or, more likely, these were quite numerous at one time and we both happened upon examples in our meanders around fairs etc. Assuming they are of the same design, then yours would have had a simple upright thorny branch between the two trumpets, rather than three trumpets - unless your broken part shows evidence of another trumpet. I suppose it could be possible that there were double and triple trumpet versions in a full set as well as other larger and more complex ones.
Are the opalescent trumpets a completely different glass from the 'stem' and feet? Are they uranium glass or not?
Mine is seen under longwave UV [blacklight] in this image (http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-9280) and it shows that the opalescent trumpets are different to the rest. I have painted out the background in black to get rid of all the white dust particles that always show under UV. Also, I have dimmed the image by 30% to get a better comparison of the difference between the reaction of the different parts (regular close-up digital shots of UV reactions as bright as with this item show as several times brighter than seen with my eyes alone). Under shortwave UV, there is no obvious reaction in any part except that everything is just brightened up several degrees - so both the greens and the opalescent white & blues look as intense as search lights compared with battery-powered torches [flashlights]!
-
Yes Leni - they are very much alike. Perhaps we each have one item from a full multi-piece set?
Not likely I'd say ;) because
the opalescent trumpets are different to the rest.
whereas mine are, in the case of this particular piece, the same glass as the rest! Which just goes to prove what I was saying about how I've found very different glass apparently used in very similar pieces! :o ::)
I would love to have your technology when illuminating my Uranium glass! I only have the most basic LED torch! :(
Having seen yours I think I agree my 'broken triple' would also have had a plain 'trunk' in the middle rather than a third trumpet, but who knows? There is such variation in these pieces!
When I spoke to Mervyn Gulliver at The National last year he seemed to think that many of the Stourbridge glasshouses would have made their own versions, which the different types of glass might indicate - or perhaps not, if they were made over a period of years :huh:
Oh, it's so confusing! With the exception of some, like those shown in my third and fourth pictures, which can possibly be 'matched' to known designs, I think I'm going to have to settle for 'Generic Stourbridge'! ::)