Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Gilead on April 08, 2008, 05:24:05 PM
-
Hello.
Could someone please tell me what style of vase this is or is it a drinking vessel i purchased this along with 5 other pieces of glass today.
The vase stands 12ins high as red handles both the handles and the vase look like paint but are glass, how is this achieved ?, is this Chinese or is it Italian. the pontil is finished well and polished, is this glass modern?
Steve
-
Could this be from india, do they make glass vase's i have looked on ebay for this or something simular since i put this post up but nowt, but to be honest i can see why it's horrible, wonder if the rest were broke if any was made ;D
Steve
-
Cannot really tell from the photos, but the handles were probably enamelled on the surface, this tends to give a 'painted' look. Whereas the body was cased with clear after the enamels were marvered in.
-
Hi Frank
The handles do look painted until you get up close and realize that they are coloured glass, the yellow tends to get lighter in the sun and can been seen though, towards the top, less enamel i presume?
Steve
-
Enamel marvered in? I thought enameling was a cold process (though fired after application). Could be a frit, though.
-
colour powder (enamel) can be applied directly to the glass when hot by marvering it into the parison, then covering it with clear glass and blowing it out. The handles were treated the same way - except for the clear casing so the colour appears to be on the surface.
The same enamel powder in a liquid form (do they still use eggwhite for this?) can be used to decorate prefabricated vessels and is subsequently fixed by reheating.
The orange/yellow vase probably originates in Romania or in China.
-
Maybe it's yet another US/UK difference in terminology, but I must admit I'm a bit skeptical (feel free to provide references and prove me wrong!). I've never heard of enamel referred to as anything but the stuff painted on in liquid form, and that's in English books as well as American. The powdered color marvered into glass is frit (ground glass), which is a component of enamel. Enamel also contains a flux to lower its melting temperature so it will fuse when low-fired. I imagine a variety of liquids has been used over the years to make it paintable; Newman describes it as "oily."
Since enamel is a form of glass, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, but I agree with the others that in this case the handles (and inner glass layer probably) were rolled in frit to give them their color.
Sorry - none of that helps with identification! If I had to guess, I'd say Chinese.
-
It is another one of those terminological inexactitudes, see the frit discussion here http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,6269.0.html where I also use the term as I used enamel above. Both are equally correct and both, along with other terms, were used throughout the industry. It would be a dull world without such variety.
-
Oooh, I hate terminological inexactitudes!
If "enamel" was used throughout the industry synonymously with "frit" as an application to hot glass, how come I've never heard it and can't find such a use anywhere? For some forgotten reason I have in the past I've looked up "enamel" in several glossaries and books, and did so again in a few recently. All the definitions I've seen match Corning's:
"Enamel
A vitreous substance made of finely powdered glass colored with metallic oxide and suspended in an oily medium for ease of application with a brush. The medium burns away during firing in a low-temperature muffle kiln (about 965°–1300°F or 500°–700°C). Sometimes, several firings are required to fuse the different colors of an elaborately enameled object."
Even if some in the industry used "enamel" to describe a process at the furnace, given that the vast majority of people use it otherwise, it seems to unnecessarily complicate matters to retain that usage when "frit" will do just fine. Variety is okay, but I think good communication is more important; there's a lot to be said for standardization (or even standardisation! ;)).
...OK, I found a couple references on the 'net to enamel as simply ground glass, but those were about enameling metal.
-
The benefit of retaining multiple description is that when you uncover new source material you will recognise that some terms could have multiple meanings. As the Frit discussion shows collectors often adopt a term and re-apply it. So perhaps any single definition is only valid for a place and period in time.
Taking standardisation to heart would involve re-writing every dictionary and only allowing one meaning per word and one word per meaning. But as long as we can say "As blue as the water in a lagoon" and understand, despite never having visited a lagoon - we can be certain that computers will not take over. ;)
-
Expressions that may not be entirely correct slip into the language, unnoticed, and become adopted, whether we like it or not, I'm afraid. I know many people who use the term "enamel" as being ground glass, and although I don't favour it, I understand it. Likewise, although I know what people mean by frit, I don't use it in this context.
The people who supply the materials refer to grits and powders or grains and powders. The colour comes in different grades and the best analogy is sugar... in the same way as you get icing sugar, caster sugar, granulated sugar, demorara sugar and "coffee" sugar, we get up to three grades of powder and up to five of grits.
Some call the finest talc, others mehl (German) or flour.
The main thing is that these handles were made by rolling clear glass in a granular form of coloured glass, which would have been marvered (rolled out on a steel table that took its name from the mispronounced "marbre" in pre-steel days when the "marbre" was made of marble) and then re-heated and brought to the gaffer to apply as handles.
-
The benefit of retaining multiple description is that when you uncover new source material you will recognise that some terms could have multiple meanings. It's one thing to know about obscure/obsolete meanings and understand them, and another to perpetuate them unnecessarily, especially when they might lead to misunderstanding.As the Frit discussion shows collectors often adopt a term and re-apply it. In my opinion this is a problem. It's the reason "Bristol" in the US has become almost meaningless - its misuse has been perpetuated by collectors abusing the term. So perhaps any single definition is only valid for a place and period in time.
Taking standardisation to heart would involve re-writing every dictionary and only allowing one meaning per word and one word per meaning. Nonsense! But as long as we can say "As blue as the water in a lagoon" and understand, despite never having visited a lagoon - we can be certain that computers will not take over. ;) I'm sorry, but that seems like a poor analogy. The blue that comes to mind when you say this will vary greatly from person to person.
"The people who supply the materials refer to grits and powders or grains and powders. The colour comes in different grades and the best analogy is sugar... in the same way as you get icing sugar, caster sugar, granulated sugar, demorara sugar and "coffee" sugar, we get up to three grades of powder and up to five of grits.
Some call the finest talc, others mehl (German) or flour."
The problem I see with this is that none of these words is particular to glassmaking, whereas I can pick up my general dictionary and find that "frit" is (more or less) ground glass.
Aren't I just totally argumentative!? >:D ;D
-
... The blue that comes to mind when you say this will vary greatly from person to person.
Aren't I just totally argumentative!? >:D ;D
1. Precisely
2. No
-
2. Yes! (hee, hee)
-
Perhaps some of the mix of meaning for "enamel" arose from a common terminology applied to the internal decoration of wine glass stems:
"Enamel twist" was included in the "Technical Terms" section of Glass-Making In England, by H. J. Powell, published 1923. It was defined, on page 45 of the book, as, "Twists of fine enamel threads incorporated in the legs or bowl of vases or wine glasses ...". A similar definition is given for the same term in Newman's, An Illustrated Dictionary of Glass. Usually, "enamel twist" referred to only the white (opal) threads, with coloured glass threads used in the same way being called simply, "coloured twists".
The same basic definition was also applicable to the earlier Venetian techniques using white and coloured threads in all their multitudes of lace-like forms.
In that sense of the the usage, was the "enamel" actually a solid thread of white (opal) glass? Or was it initially formed from white (opal) "frit" or "grit" before being pulled into a thin length?
-
As used by the Venetians, the threads were made from solid glass rods. Newman in the definition of "twist" says they were made from solid glass rods, so I don't see how the definition is similar to the one in which enamel is mentioned.
Another Newman definition:
"enamel glass. A term sometimes misleadingly and incorrectly applied in the 18th century (and sometimes later) to OPAQUE WHITE GLASS, because its appearance and composition (tin oxide) are similar to those of enamelled or tin-glazed pottery....The term 'enamel' with respect to glassware should be restricted to the vitreous fusible pigment used for surface decoration" (my bold! ;D)
-
... I don't see how the definition is similar to the one in which enamel is mentioned.
The definition is similar because of the overall wording, not because of the specific mention of "opaque white glass". For readers without a copy of Newman's book, his definition for "enamel twist" was: A twist produced by using threads of opaque white glass or of opaque coloured glass embedded in clear glass (as in the case of canes of millefiori type) and twisting and manipulating them.
Although Newman qualified "glass threads" by including "opaque", I think that most people would see that both Newman and Powell used a very similar overall defintion for the term "enamel twist". It is that similarity which I was suggesting may have been a basis for some confusion of terminlogy in the past.
My main point was that those were definitions for "enamel twist" and therefore the term "enamel" had a valid use in connection with "opaque white glass" used internally as well as for enamel as used externally.
-
Hmmm, I think you must have a different edition of Newman's or something, because I don't have "enamel twist" in mine (dated 1977, must be first ed.). Kind of odd, because the definition you mention directly contradicts what he says under "enamelled glass."
I guess what my argument boils down to is that for the sake of easy, accurate communication, it simply makes sense to try to standardize our language (within reason). This doesn't mean saying that Powell's definition of enamel twist was wrong, it's just dated. There's no point in retaining definitions that are obscure and misleading according to today's common, correct usage. Language evolves. Frank said, "Taking standardisation to heart would involve re-writing every dictionary and only allowing one meaning per word and one word per meaning" - I don't agree with the latter part of the statement, but the fact is, dictionaries do get re-written and outdated meanings are abandoned.
-
Lets start calling glass metal then, glass is so misused >:D
-
Hmmm, I think you must have a different edition of Newman's or something, because I don't have "enamel twist" in mine (dated 1977, must be first ed.). Kind of odd, because the definition you mention directly contradicts what he says under "enamelled glass."
The entry is a sub-entry under "Types of Twist". Since I was aware of terms used for internal decoration of antique wine glass stems, I knew where to look. See pages 318-320 for the full list of "twist" terms.
I could have been more specific about where the definition was, and although I was not trying to be evasive, our discussion does illustrate how confusions can arise with seemingly well-defined terms and how easy it is to not know about alternatives.
This doesn't mean saying that Powell's definition of enamel twist was wrong, it's just dated. There's no point in retaining definitions that are obscure and misleading according to today's common, correct usage. Language evolves.
But who is the arbiter of what is regarded as correct in "today's common usage"? And why should a well-established term used in a particular branch of glass study (i.e. old drinking glass stems) be regarded as not conforming to "today's correct usage" particulalrly if, as I suspect, there are no widely accepted modern versions of the "old" terms?
This discussion is now getting to a point where it could be better split out as a separate topic, or perhaps merged with some similar ideas expressed in a message that Jay started recently about new names for parts of Dutch drinking glasses.
Fascinating stuff. :)
-
"This discussion is now getting to a point where it could be better split out as a separate topic" True, although I wonder how much longer it will last. I'm surprised others are still following it! It's great to discuss these rather esoteric semantic issues; I'm glad people are interested. One day in the not too distant future I might write an article about some glass terminology for Frank's Glass Study site, and it's good to know that I'll get some lively discussion here when I prepare for it.
Now then, enamel twist...I Googled (now there's an example of our changing language!) and see the term is in common usage. My take on that is that "enamel twist" is itself a term, and it doesn't mean that we can now interpret "enamel" to mean opaque glass.
As for arbiters of definition, I suppose we could always use a glass dictionary writer like Newman. Convenient for me, since he rejects the use of "enamel" to all but "vitreous fusible pigment used in surface decoration"! ;D
"Lets start calling glass metal then, glass is so misused " Hee hee, that's silly! ;)
Uh-oh ... the V&A no less mentions "rods of white enamel" in a discussion of how enamel twists are made (http://www.vam.ac.uk/school_stdnts/schools_teach/teachers_resources/glass/glass_projects/stems/index.html). Should I admit defeat?
-
Defeat? It is always useful to thrash these semantics around, they serve a double purpose - helping the newbie to understand glassmaking and its variety. For the older hands it helps us keep all those tidbits of knowledge fresh and relevant and to remember the bits we forget about, or even get lazy about!
-
Oh, man, I just have to add this to the discussion:
http://cgi.ebay.com/THERESIENTHAL-ENAMBLED-9-INCH-CHAMPAGNE_W0QQitemZ180234502724QQihZ008QQcategoryZ29556QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
-
Lets start calling glass metal then, glass is so misused >:D
Presumably you are referring to the fact that "Metal" is/was used to describe the molten glass in some factories, although I think this was more prevalent in factories that no longer exist, so there may be a dateline or generational cut-off involved. (More due to market factors than the fact that they could not distinguish between glass and metal! ;D)
-
Metal certainly goes back to the sixteenth century, most recent term I heard from a glass technologist a couple of years ago was Melt as a generic for batches. Specifically: "We (Moncrieff) made the Melt for Paul Ysart in Harland, I still have his recipes."
-
"Metal" is a pretty common term for molten glass here, at least among those interested in glassmaking. I looked it up in Newman yesterday, and surprisingly (to me) the definition included solid glass, too.
-
Maybe it's yet another US/UK difference in terminology, but I must admit I'm a bit skeptical (feel free to provide references and prove me wrong!). I've never heard of enamel referred to as anything but the stuff painted on in liquid form, and that's in English books as well as American. The powdered color marvered into glass is frit (ground glass), which is a component of enamel. Enamel also contains a flux to lower its melting temperature so it will fuse when low-fired. I imagine a variety of liquids has been used over the years to make it paintable; Newman describes it as "oily."
Since enamel is a form of glass, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, but I agree with the others that in this case the handles (and inner glass layer probably) were rolled in frit to give them their color.
Sorry - none of that helps with identification! If I had to guess, I'd say Chinese.
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,21477.20.html
I presume that mtpaul is based either in US or Canada, in which case reference provided as requested! :)
-
Mt Paul's from Alaska. But I meant written references, and have found them on my own. I found a CD on ebay with about 15 old glass books the makers had photocopied and saved as pdf files, including Pellat's Curiosities of Glassmaking :D. Quality isn't tremendous, but a lot cheaper than the real thing. Euriskodata, Inc. is the company, if anyone's interested in checking it out.
I had a feeling I'd have to swallow some of my words on this one; I thought I'd already choked down some from the early post Adam quotes.
I still think it's needlessly confusing to use "enamel" for anything but a paintable medium these days - in fact, I think I misunderstood mt paul's message.
-
...including Pellat's Curiosities of Glassmaking :D. Quality isn't tremendous, ...
Coming soon to a Glass Study near you in HIGH quality and of course fully searchable and annotatable.
-
Regarding Pellat's "Curiosities of Glass Making" ...
What's the situation with copyright? The original work is clearly outside the standard copyright period. But "The Ceramic Book Company, Newport - Mon - England", published a 1968 Reprint of the book (no ISBN)and stated "Copyright reserved in all countries".
-
I wondered when someone would ask such a question.
Their copyright is limited to the presentation, as are most publishers copyright, and this tends to be only 25 years to allow authors to get their works republished if the original publisher refuses. So copying and republishing their edition which is actually a facsimile (photographs of pages and usually poor quality.) would fall foul, I am not sure that the 25 years applies since more recent changes in copyright law and in any case publishers rights vary from country to country.
In the glass study I convert 'the original books text' to text, add annotations as available or when comments get made, and restore all images to as good as new. I preserve pagination (in most cases) to allow reference to the original, but I do ask members for the addition of 'Courtesy the Glass-Study'. All of my restorations are subject to copyright and have a minute alteration to detect unauthorised re-use. Glass-Study members can make reasonable use of the sites images on their web-site, except for licensed works, and if wanted for a book the original restored scans are available at a nominal fee. Where I reproduce copyright material I either get a license to do so or convert the text to an paginated index so that searches will be able to find references in books that can then be purchased from booksellers in order to find out what those references about. As it is a non-profit venture I usually get free licenses and once I have established it part of the proceeds will be used for costs and the remainder paid into a charitable fund being set-up to preserve glass web-sites. Recovering the costs of the glass-study is unlikely without sales of images for use in publications and I expect to have something in excess of 100,000 glass images available after stage 1 of the development c.2012.
After 2012 I do have additional plans to create additional income streams to help build the fund and once that charity is established the first year subscription officially starts and fees for founding members will be fixed but new members will have to pay more. I have paid considerable sums for legal advice on copyright complexities that affect what I am doing and also considered the impact on antiquarian book-sales, which I consider to be miniscule as I can only digitise a couple of hundred works with a retail value of around 20,000 Euros. Equivalent to 600-700 subscriptions.
The basic philosophy is to make material easily searchable, annotations allow highlighting of errors or indication of later research and to fund the preservation charity. Were I to make the site public it would not be possible to obtain licenses where needed. Organisations doing a similar thing but trying to cover the costs charge typically from 1,000 dollars per annum to cover the costs involved and they have no connected collaborative research facilities, the studies are currently primitive and that will be addressed in Stage 2 after 2012.
My personal commitment will continue to at least 2012 after which I hope to partner with others and provide facilities that researchers can get a small income from material that is not cost effective to publish in print.