Glass Message Board

Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Unresolved Glass Queries => Topic started by: RAY on September 23, 2005, 06:18:39 PM

Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: RAY on September 23, 2005, 06:18:39 PM
took a chance on this one, i got it off ebay, it measures 9.25" high with a thick drawn trumpet bowl, the glass has a yellow tinge to it and some part's are streaky this is were i think it could be a repro " trying to make the glass old yellow", the foot is on par with 1700's with a snapped pontil and age related wear to the base of the foot




click on image for larger photo

(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/th_ef15a02d.jpg) (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/ef15a02d.jpg)
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/th_0cb201d3.jpg) (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/0cb201d3.jpg)
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/th_a497d08a.jpg) (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/a497d08a.jpg)
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/th_7c6b31d5.jpg) (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/7c6b31d5.jpg)
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/th_87a1b848.jpg) (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/87a1b848.jpg)
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/th_3bce3546.jpg) (http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/yorkshirebob/3bce3546.jpg)
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: Tigerchips on September 24, 2005, 06:53:25 AM
Acording to my book, old glasses should have sriations or tooling marks on both bowl and foot. The bowl should invariably show three or more faint creases running diagnally down from the rim.  :)
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: RAY on September 27, 2005, 12:48:28 PM
all the tooling marks are there on both bowl and foot
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: KevinH on September 27, 2005, 05:12:17 PM
Hi folks,

My understanding of the precise details of identifying 18th century drinking glasses is quite limited. But I will offer a few points as to why I think Ray's glass is not 18th century (at least, not the usual English or Dutch as seen in sale rooms and books).

The very yellow tint to much of the glass does not seem to fit with regular 18th century pieces which were made of "glass of lead". Even with a "greyness", as mentioned elsewhere by Ivo, 18th century glass still had a clarity that was obvious in even the dullest of examples. It was the clarity of the English (and Dutch) pieces that were one of the major reasons why they bacame, probably, the best in the world at the time.

Tooling marks and so forth are indeed found in many, and maybe most, or even all, 18th century drinking glasses. But, as stated in another topic, copiers and fakers did their best to emulate those features.

As and example of how difficult it can be to spot a fake amongst the genuine, check out this image, which shows (just for the fun of it), six 18th century glasses and one which is possibly early 20th century:
http://tinypic.com/e0llox.jpg
All of those glasses, including the odd one out, have evidence of "old" workmanship in the bowls, stems and feet.

I have added sizes (in inches) and weights (in grammes) to the photo as a guide to how people may be able to detect a wrong 'un without having to think too much about all the other pointers. Given that the real items were of lead glass, size for size there should be a general correlation between the weight of each. One of the glasses in the photo does not tie in well with the size-to-weight analysis.

Another pointer, which is not always clear (pun intended), is the often stated "ping" test. Of the seven glasses shown in my photo, two are duller but still have a ringing tone, but one has just a dulll "thuck", no matter how it is held or where it is pinged. And that one is the same one that fails the weight check.

So, Ray, what is the weight of your very tall cordial (?) glass?

Another point, according to L M Bickerton (author of 18th Century English Glasses, An Illustrated Guide), is that items with coloured twists in the stem usually attract "many times the price" than if the same glass had only opaque white for the twists. He also suggested it was this price difference that "encourages reproductions", and he said that the copies were
Quote
Probably of Contintental origin ... Light weight makes one immediatley suspicious ...  the threads themselves are weak in colour, lacking the solidity and brilliance of those in genuine English glasses.

I think the blue twist in Ray's glass falls into the category of "weak in colour".

And finally, on the point that Tigerchips raised about a book quote of:
Quote
The bowl should invariably show three or more faint creases running diagnally down from the rim
I too would be interested to know which book that is, because I think it is misleading to say that such creases should run diagonally :!:
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: Max on September 27, 2005, 05:40:31 PM
I'd like to recommend a Glass Circle publication; 'Diamond Jubilee', incorporating 'English Glass Collecting for Beginners' - a series of five letters [to a beginner], by John M Bacon.

http://www.zen12399.zen.co.uk/glasscircle/html/catalogues___other_publication.html

It's in-depth yet easy to understand, and most importantly it makes the subject matter interesting!  I've always had a bit of a block with this type of glass, but thoroughly enjoyed reading this.   :)
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: RAY on September 27, 2005, 06:57:25 PM
thanks for the run down Kev, it weighs 246g or 8.3/4 oz

on your glasses Kev i think the fake date glass is the most one on the right. looks like it's from bohimia , just a guess i dont know to much about old glass
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: roget123 on September 27, 2005, 08:06:15 PM
Hi Ray,

Sorry :cry: but I strongly believe your glass is a repro, and a very badly made one at that.  
I started my collecting habit with 18thC wine glasses until they became too expensive for my limited budget, and over the years I have seen many examples, albeit, mainly in good collections with the cream of those glasses on show.  I have never seen one that is so poorly proportioned or made as this one. The stem bulges and leans, the glass colour - yellow - why yellow to try and kid someone it is old???? :roll:

The shape and thickness of the bowl  is also suspect and finally I have never seen a twist stem glass where the twists start within the foot-to-stem joint, they normally are contained inside the stem.  Who ever made that glass seems to be someone's apprentice having a bad glass day and possably had never seen a genuine 18thC glass before!!

Has Kev stated a colour twist stemmed glass should be worth if right, several thousands of pounds (GBP) and therefore not likely to appear on Ebay,

So once again sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the best thing you can do with that glass is to put it down to one of life's experiences.

Geoff Timberlake
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: Tigerchips on September 27, 2005, 08:30:05 PM
I Think it is the one on the far left, it should be heavier for it's size and the conical foot looks too steep (just a guess).

I got my previous information from "Miller's Understanding Antique's (1992)".
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: RAY on September 27, 2005, 09:41:54 PM
hi Geoff,  it was a chance to take, in the back of my mind it was saying repro but just wanted a 2nd 3rd opinion
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: Anonymous on September 28, 2005, 10:23:16 AM
Quote from: "Tigerchips"
I Think it is the one on the far left, it should be heavier for it's size and the conical foot looks too steep (just a guess).

I got my previous information from "Miller's Understanding Antique's (1992)".


From the hints Kev gave, it must be the one on the far right, which has the least weight to height ratio.

Tell you what Ray's example reminds me of, and that is the huge volumes of really roughly made recycled glass that comes out of Mexico. I'm not saying that's what it is, but the production values certainly remind me of it.

Cathy B
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: Tigerchips on September 28, 2005, 04:48:47 PM
Quote from: "Cathy B"

From the hints Kev gave, it must be the one on the far right, which has the least weight to height ratio.



That was my second guess but I thought that the twist and the small bowl might lessen the weight a bit.  :?
Title: 1700's or repro wine glass
Post by: KevinH on September 29, 2005, 01:17:47 PM
Yes, the odd-one-out in my photo is the one on the far right, as Ray guessed, and for the reason that Cathy gave. But Tigerchips' reasoning, wondering about the effect of the small bowl and the twist (which is actually a mixed air twist and an opaque white thread), shows just the sort of thinking that is also necessary for a fuller analysis.

The smallest item, with the "stepped" foot happens to have the highest weight-height ratio, and by a very large degree! This may be because the glass has a higher lead content than the others or it could be because the foot is formed from "thick loops" which in total may be just as heavy as the foot and stem together of some other items.

Anyway, what I should point out is that my general weight-to-height ratio idea is only a very rough way to assess things. For an accurate analysis of this type it's the Specific Gravity that needs to be measured. And even then, the visual features probably count for more towards a final decision.

But, taking a bit of a ramble for a moment ... When we read about "light weight" being a "reason for suspicion", how can we know what this means unless there are known genuine items to compare with? And can we make any proper assessment of this type when, for instance, attending an auction viewing or examining items from a dealer's display? How many of us go out and about with a set of scales and a tape measure (or perhaps even a bucket of water and a thermometer, for Specific Gravity measures)?

Although I am happy enough that the other six pieces in my photo are 18th century items, I don't actually have guaranteed proof of that!