Glass Message Board

Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: pamela on January 25, 2009, 08:48:33 PM

Title: is it a Bagley? - ID = Sowerby 2631 pattern
Post by: pamela on January 25, 2009, 08:48:33 PM
is it a Bagley?
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=360123711703&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=023
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Lustrousstone on January 26, 2009, 07:16:40 AM
No, Stohzle?
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Mosquito on January 26, 2009, 08:31:44 AM
I don't recall the pattern no. or name but this pattern is definitely Sowerby. Glen, Adam or Bernard may be able to add more.
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: pamela on January 26, 2009, 10:49:51 AM
 :clap: thank you, Steven - traced it on Glen's Sowerby III, pattern # 2631
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Bernard C on January 26, 2009, 10:51:15 AM
Pamela — Yes, it's Sowerby 2631, missing its plinth and 2487 Star flower holder.   With the Turned over rim this version could have been referenced T2631 — check this in Glen's CDs.

Bernard C.  8)

Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: pamela on January 26, 2009, 09:31:34 PM
Thank you, Bernard! would it have come with a plinth and flower star if only 8cms high?
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Lustrousstone on January 27, 2009, 07:23:25 AM
Probably not  :chky:
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Bernard C on January 27, 2009, 12:56:47 PM
Christine — I disagree.   Here in the UK, generally only Sowerby's "as-moulded" vases, i.e. celery vase or toothpick holder shape, were sold either on their own or with both flower holder and plinth as standard.   T-ed and other reshaped vases were sold with both fittings as standard.   This also seems to have been the case in the Empire/Commonwealth.   I don't know what was standard for Sowerby's exports to mainland Europe where plinths were less frequently used.

You will notice my "as standard" qualification.   The only rule was to sell and make a profit.   Trade buyers with major spending power could specify any combination they wanted, but I don't believe nonstandard configurations were that common.

Note one oddity.   Bagley 1+2 clock garnitures were not issued with flower holders as standard, according to their PG ads.   So a Bagley clock garniture with flower holders offered now is likely to be the inspiration of a creative mix-and-match dealer.

Bernard C.  8)
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Lustrousstone on January 27, 2009, 07:49:08 PM
Looking at the catalogues, the plinths and blocks don't seem to be small enough at about 2.5 in (6+ cm) for a block and 3.5 in (8+ cm) for a plinth (I can't see them clearly enough) for something so small; it's only violet vase/toothpick holder sized. Did they come small enough?
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Bernard C on January 27, 2009, 11:45:03 PM
Christine — Yes, they did.   From my own experience I guess that something over three quarters of the smallest flower holders were either smashed or thrown out with the dead flowers.   Safest to blame mother-in-law.  ;D

Bernard C.  8)
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Bernard C on January 28, 2009, 01:31:41 PM
See images with topic A Sowerby plinth story with a twist in the tale! (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,21029.0.html) for the six-winged smallest size Star flower holder.   There was also a four-winged version of this size.

Bernard C.  8)
Title: Re: is it a Bagley?
Post by: Lustrousstone on January 28, 2009, 03:35:51 PM
Thank you