Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Doris104 on November 29, 2008, 03:29:57 AM
-
Can someone clear this up for me? I have had 3 people give me different opinions of this piece, and I'm not sure who to believe. As close as I can determine, it is 9" long.
http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo70/doris104/Phoenix1.jpg
http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo70/doris104/Phoenix2.jpg
Thanks
-
It's Imperial #5026, you can see other examples here [LINK REMOVED].
Mod: Links to clicksnipwow removed as site is no longer connected to glass. Please visit http://chataboutdg.com/forums/ and use the search function instead
-
That looks just like mine, but do you know the dimensions? I was told that mine is to big to be an original.
-
They are 5" tall, the verde green satin was reissued 1964-66. Fostoria made a crystal one that was sold in 1990.
-
Is that to the top of the bowl or the tip on its head?
-
I don't have one but I would think the tallest part would be measured, there is no length given.
-
I don't know if this is relevant, and it may be just the angle of the camera, but it seems like the head on the green one doesn't form the same angle with the neck that the blue one does. Looks like the head on the blue one is tucked in a little. But again, I don't know if that's really true or meaningful.
Lovely piece!
-
That is one of the issue that I am having in trying to identify this piece. Most of the pictures I see of the original seem to have a different shape neck, but then I had one person who is in the glass id business say that it was an original. I just don't see that it is. That's why I am trying to get others opinion. I think it is a copy, but it's hard not to agree with a professional.
-
It seems likely that the curve in the neck was created after the item was removed from the mould, in which case the angle of the neck would vary.
The other question is why would it be a copy, it was obviously produced over at least two periods, so there are bound to be small differences.
the verde green satin was reissued 1964-66
-
You should contact http://www.imperialglass.org (http://www.imperialglass.org), with that much doubt you should always seek out the authorities. They will have the most current information.
-
I didn't know about the reissue dates, thanks. I thought about contacting Imperial Glass, but it seems like I never get responses from other sites that I try to get info from. Maybe they will be different.
Thanks for all the help.
Doris
-
It seems likely that the curve in the neck was created after the item was removed from the mould Why? If they were able to mold it in it's final form, I don't see why they wouldn't be identical., in which case the angle of the neck would vary.
The other question is why would it be a copy, it was obviously produced over at least two periods, so there are bound to be small differences. If they were made with the same mold, which seems likely, why would there be small differences in shape? And apparently it was copied by Fostoria. Lots of American Elegant/Depression glass originally made by one company was reissued by another. It was common for one company to buy the molds of another as it went belly-up, and to reuse them.
I don't know much about Imperial, but I thought their Verde Green was more olive-colored, like [LINK REMOVED] this. I used to have a Heisey by Imperial Provincial candy jar, and that Verde was even more olive. Did it change that much over the years, or is the satin version a different color?
Mod: Links to clicksnipwow removed as site is no longer connected to glass. Please visit http://chataboutdg.com/forums/ and use the search function instead
-
I note that Deco Queen did not say that the original item under discussion was verde green, merely that satinised verde green versions were re-issued. As to the neck, taking such a piece from the mould may result in irregular necks, from slumping.
If they were made with the same mold, which seems likely, why would there be small differences in shape?
Deterioration of the mould in storage, wear, damage to, and repair of, mould, post-moulding work.....even a replacement mould, as until recently it was not possible to EXACTLY copy a mould, even for the same product.
Regards,
Marcus
-
I can understand why moulds would be reused elsewhere but why would something like this be copied, which is not the same thing. I also understand there is a subtle difference between reissue (issue again, which you can't do unless you've already issued it) and reproduce (copy). A reuse of a mould that has been sold on is surely a new issue by a different company. Moulds wear out, the new one might not be quite identical to the last one. Look at the Cambridge swans, they can be dated roughly by their differences I believe.
Perhaps they couldn't mould the neck in its final form and it did need tweaking - we don't know. Pressed glass pieces are not always quite identical - I bought a pair of candlesticks this weekend and the candle holder on one has a small sideways list, and it's a very simple shape.
In fact the two shown here are subtly different in neck and crest [LINK REMOVED]
Mod: Links to clicksnipwow removed as site is no longer connected to glass. Please visit http://chataboutdg.com/forums/ and use the search function instead
-
Yes, it's possible the angle of the neck may vary due to slumping or repositioning; I thought of that, too. But normally there was a lot of attention paid to making these things as identical as possible, and as long as it was possible to mold the head and neck in final position, that's how they would do it. Hard to tell whether that was the case here or not, though. (The Cambridge swan mold positioned the head in its final spot, but that's not relevant, just an aside.)
I used the term "reissue" wrong, thanks for pointing that out, Christine. Molds were reused by "secondary" companies, though - reproductions were made. It's a big problem among collectors of the patterns that were reproduced. Imperial reproduced many Heisey patterns, for example, often in their own colors, but sometimes in "crystal," too. Some even still have the Heisey Diamond H on them. It can be very difficult to tell them apart.
Molds were retooled, but that wouldn't account for a change like the position of the head. It could account for other, more detailed differences by which items might be dated, though. Why couldn't some molds be copied as long as they didn't require cutting or etching to complete?
The green one Christine posted a link to is Imperial's Verde. It's hard to tell the differences between that and the opaque blue one when the photos are taken at different angles.
I'm not saying either way whether the light green one is a reproduction. I have no idea.
-
I did send an email off to Imperial Glass to see if they would help me. I will post as soon, or if, I get a response from them. I hope they follow through with a response. With all the information that you were talking about, now I really need to know. That is a totally different green than mine.
-
Molds were retooled, but that wouldn't account for a change like the position of the head.
May I ask why not?
Regards,
Marcus
-
Yes, it's possible the angle of the neck may vary due to slumping or repositioning; I thought of that, too. But normally there was a lot of attention paid to making these things as identical as possible, and as long as it was possible to mold the head and neck in final position, that's how they would do it.
Just as a general rule, the more complex the moulded pattern, the more likely it is to need post-mould tooling.
-
It is not wise to assume that a single mould was used, as popular lines might require multiple moulds to be used concurrently and each mould would have differences and some of these could be significant. Retooling a worn mould is unlikely to change the overall geometry but it is feasible to replace one or more parts of a mould completely as deemed necessary.
Comparing press images of pressed items can reveal substantial difference - to an eye used to seeing differences. This can be seen in a 1975 image of a Jurnikl figurine (Glass Figurines Pelt, 1975 page 13) reproduced in the Glass Zoo alongside an image from the same angle of an example in my collection (Even allowing for ambitious trimming of the original image. A quick glance at another half a dozen if this figurine shows that several moulds had been used. How one would date based on such differences is hard unless you have access to the original moulds and the dates of their use. On the other hand, in this case some evolution and refinement of the design could be considered - but at best it would be educated guesswork. As modern technology allows for precision reproductions to be made, would the impact be to class all that match one particular original mould to be regarded as reproductions?
-
:clap: Thanks Frank
-
Molds were retooled, but that wouldn't account for a change like the position of the head.
May I ask why not?
Regards,
Marcus
But of course you may! ;D Frank already said it: "Retooling a worn mould is unlikely to change the overall geometry..." Retooling involves removing material, but so far as I know you can't add material to a mold, so you can't change the position of something large like the head. Frank went on to say, "...but it is feasible to replace one or more parts of a mould completely as deemed necessary" and that's a good point I hadn't thought of.
I don't know why they couldn't make multiple molds that are very nearly identical. You could either use the original model from which the first mold was made, or make a model of an existing piece to base the new mold on. In reproductions of Depression glass it's often the surface details that are different from originals, not the shape as a whole (though that can change, too). The details were cut or etched into the mold after it was formed, so it was harder to copy them accurately. New molds may also have seams in different spots.
It is not wise to assume that a single mould was used, as popular lines might require multiple moulds to be used concurrently and each mould would have differences and some of these could be significant.
From the years that I was active in a Depression/Elegant glass forum and editor of part of the associated image gallery, I don't remember any examples of items that had multiple significantly different forms or dimensions that weren't reproductions. I'm sure there are some, but they're uncommon. It's pretty amazing, really, how little change there was even in popular lines that ran for a long time. (This may not apply to items that had post-mold manipulation like applied handles...or the position of a bird's head and neck.)
Look at the Cambridge swans, they can be dated roughly by their differences I believe.
(Christine)
I just found a post in that forum that talks about Cambridge Type 1 and Type 2 swan molds; could that allude to the differences you're talking about? Incidentally, there's a photo of a swan mold here that I took at the Cambridge Glass Museum, at the top of [LINK REMOVED] an article that talks about the movement of molds from company to company (or other organisation). (The photo wasn't so blurry when I took it! Cool mold, though.)
[Mod: Links to clicksnipwow removed as site is no longer connected to glass. Please visit http://chataboutdg.com/forums/ and use the search function instead]
-
It is possible to add material from a mould, cut out a piece and put in a new chunk. While it would certainly be done in some industry, I have no idea if it is/was done in glass moulds. Originals models are often made of wood and cast made from that. Most impressive is seeing masters that are carved for moulds, removing a stage in the process. I have no idea if the castings were made from wax or sand positives. No doubt all of the possible mould making techniques have been used for making glass moulds.
A good way, for American's, to see the impact of multiple molds for a single shape is to pick a particular OI (Owen-Illinois) container shape that have fully documented mold numbers in their catalogs (to facilitate reverse ordering). For examples you will find the mold numbers A-381, A-406 & A-410 on the 2oz Argylle Bull Neck Panel shown here. (US spellings used) (Data and images, not yet on-line, courtesy the Glass-Study).
Many decorative items may well only have one mould, it is all dependant on the rate of production needed.
-
There's an article on the National Cambridge Collector's site (http://www.cambridgeglass.org/articles/swanarticle.php) about the three different types of swan. In all but the 3" size the different types were reworking of the same mold.
The reason I was over there, though, is an interview with a former Cambridge mold maker. (http://www.cambridgeglass.org/articles/danslayinterview.php) The original models were made of wood, as Frank said, then plaster casts made of them. Only the exterior details of the mold were done by the casting company; the interior detail was at Cambridge using hammer and chisel. "A small item like the Nude stem took three to four weeks to chip out with the hammer and chisel." Interesting article.
The molds obviously took a long time to make, which would explain why they were retooled whenever possible rather than having new ones made. The retooling is one reason why sizes (diameter, etc.) are so imprecise and variable. Apparently some molds required specialized tools to operate, and even when a mold went from one company to the next, if they didn't have the right tools they couldn't make it work.
It is possible to add material from a mould, cut out a piece and put in a new chunk.
In a cast iron mold? That will withstand the heat and pressure required in the glass pressing process? Maybe.
Most impressive is seeing masters that are carved for moulds, removing a stage in the process.
Do you mean for turn molds, and other molds for blowing? Heisey used wooden molds at least in their early years; they probably switched to iron molds later.
-
Drat I missed out 'negative', i.e. the same as the mould. Some of the best mould makers were American.
The engineers at glassworks are often the unsung heroes.
-
Just found this when reading another thread, http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Den/3255/ (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Den/3255/), I didn't know Tiara made it.
-
Lancaster Colony ended up with this mold & made them for Fostoria outlet stores & Tiara. IG reissued them from 1964-66 & the 65-66 reissues had the neck moved slightly downward, less upright. Also IG made the 64-66 reissues in multiple colors, more than is listed in some references so you cannot go by color. Below is a Periwinkle Blue Phoenix from IG in 1966. Ken