Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Glen on October 17, 2005, 09:13:56 AM
-
Oh it's a puzzle. Who made it? No trademark. My money's on Sowerjoblerby. Has anyone got one with a trademark? Any thoughts and info? I've posted two photos here and plan to put more (catalogue) info on this page shortly.
http://www.geocities.com/carni_glass_uk_2000/PGBirdVase.html
Glen
-
Glen - yes, it's Jobling's Bird & Panel Vase, 8" No. 11400, 10" No. 11500, Reg. No. 794907 of July 21, 1934, original plaster models by Etienne Franckhauser. Source: Baker & Crowe.
Nice example.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard - that's what I always thought.......BUTTTTTT....the same vase is shown in the Sowerby catalogues. Identical.
:o :o :o :o :o :o
Here's the Sowerby catalogue image. Illustrated List 39 (1950s?) You'll see the vase is number 2684. It must post date the Jobling one (which was 1934) as shown in Baker & Crowe.
http://tinypic.com/eq5amf.jpg
I'll put this alongside the Jobling one on my website url as shown in my first post above.
Baker & Crowe note the size of the vase is 8". You'll see that Sowerby state theirs to be 7½". The one I have is 7½" - and as I noted above, it has no trademark. I reckon it must be Sowerby's! (Or Joberby's or perhaps even Sowerling).
Adam D, any insights?
Glen
-
Glen,
This baffles me. I have no memory of ever having seen this vase nor the number 2684. The range of colours listed is exactly what we had in the 1950s, but the number baffles me. I could have sworn that by the time I left (1956) we had only reached about 2660 or at the most 2670. Are you sure of your catalogue date?
Adam D.
-
Hi Adam - it is undoubtedly Illustrated List number 39. You are a better judge of the actual year that was issued than I am ... I'm just guessing from context, as the Tyne & Wear book shows List 38 to be from 1956.
It's a puzzler, that's for sure. I had always thought my vase was Jobling, but then I stared at the Sowerby catalogue page that I've posted the extract from, and nearly dropped off my chair when I realised what the vase actually was.
Glen
-
Glen & Adam - I am not at all surprised. Jobling's old "Flint" moulds were available post-war, indeed I recall that you, Adam, told us that you were there, reminiscing over the old Davidson lorry with the driver, when the last of them were loaded on to it in the early sixties. That final batch must have included the wildly Deco random geometric ashtray No. 2598 that I have had through my hands, punched with the new Davidson trademark, and made in their "Marble" glass.
It also explains why the small bird & panel vase is by far the most widely available of all Jobling's 1930's decorative vases. Jobling were late on to the market with this glass, and must have had difficulty in obtaining trade buyers, already well established with other suppliers.
It also explains why the small bird & panel vase is found in some very unjoblingesque colours and finishes.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Yes Bernard. I think we are going to have to change our thinking (and records) about the Bird & Panel vase. I am pretty sure mine is Sowerby (going by its size and lack of a trademark). If anyone has a marked 11400 (not the larger 10" one) can you please measure its height? Mine is undoubtedly a little under the 8" mark.
Bird & Panel vase - Jobling AND Sowerby.
Glen
-
Yes, I think we are getting there. If List 38 was 1956, that was probably the one and only one that I was involved with. As I left that year, No 39 would be post-me.
I had always assumed that when I saw the Jobling moulds en route for Davidsons some time in the 1960s that the latter had taken the whole lot. With hindsight, there was no justification for that - just a feeling based on the fact that Jobling's engineering management liked to get rid of unwanted stuff fast. It now seems that Sowerbys (and others?) might have been invited to do a bit of cherry -picking.
The big gap between the pattern numbers which I remember and 2684 surprised me because I knew that no way would Sowerbys have had the capacity to produce so much new stuff. That now will suggest that Sowerbys took and re-christened much more than this one vase or suite.
So, you cynic (I forget who) who criticised Sowerbys sequential numbering system, it has its uses!!
Adam D.
-
Glen - A most interesting and important discovery, embracing several "firsts". I hope that future historians acknowledge your discovery, but, as I have rather sadly recently discovered myself, you should not expect it. I don't understand why. Proper acknowledgement adds considerably to the strength of your material.
Well done, Glen, and my warmest congratulations.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard - thank you for your chivalrous compliment (http://www.smileys.ws/sm/msn/00000035.gif)
(Truth is, I am no stranger to my research being buried in the mists).
However, the bottom line is that with the help of both you and Adam, we have managed to advance our collective knowledge a little further.
So, THANK YOU Bernard and THANK YOU Adam :D
Glen
-
The 2598 ashtray is positive proof that Franckhauser was not a mouldmaker, nor did he commission a subcontractor to cast and engineer the moulds. This is reinforced by the difficulties that Jobling had with extracting the glass from several moulds, including the two main centrepiece figurines that went into production and the 11600 Open-footed Vase, necessitating major changes (see Baker & Crowe). Franckhauser's involvement finished with the plaster model. In the past, I have been as guilty as others of describing Franckhauser as a mouldmaker - let's all take the opportunity to become rather more accurate with our terminology.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Glen, I was recently watching one of these on eBay - it's a frosted amber colour, just short of 8". The seller didn't mention a mark but that, of course, doesn't mean there wasn't one. Anyhow, the item's photos are still there so check it out here: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7354843469. Hope this may be of use.
-
Glen - a uranium green 8" Bird & Panel Vase would certainly be a Jobling production, as, of the big four English pressed glass factories, only Bagley appears to have managed to retain some stocks of the uranium ore after the requisitioning of supplies by the government. Bagley used it on the late '40s Carnival pattern.
So, does anyone reading this know of an example?
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard - I inherited a small bag (maybe a couple of pounds) of uranium oxide at Davidsons. I didn't use any so it was still there when I left. Someone later could have played around with it.
Adam D.
-
Thanks, Bernard and Adam, for your information and further input. (Adam, I love your note about the small bag of uranium oxide lying around at Sowerby's. Wrong Glen! I mean Davidson's. Doh Doh. It's a poor thing when I can't even copy what's written a few lines above, isn't it? :oops:
That's going to bring a smile to my face all day).
If I have learned one thing from researching and "living" glass over the past years, it is to employ the word usually a great deal. I try not to be firm and finite and often try to introduce a tiny element of uncertainty. That's the scholarly interpretation anyhow. The practical interpretation is that I am "hedging my bets".
Anyhow, back to the Sowerjoberling Bird & Panel Vase. Thanks, Anne, for the link help. What we need are some reports of actual examples of the vase with Jobling trademarks now. We need to compare them and see if we can identify any indicators other than a trademark. Indeed, where and what is the Jobling trademark like on these vases? My Jobling uranium green/vaseline Celery vase has the moulded Rd No 796183 on the inside of the outer part of the base (underneath - on the marie). Can anyone help with information here?
Peter, you noted the shape of the base/foot. Yes, I would say that this style and shape is common and we can't draw anything from it. But your question and Bernard's follow-up raised a point that I would like to pick up on shortly - that is the making of the plaster model. I mentioned in another thread recently that I had had close involvement in the creation of a design -> creation of the plaster model -> production of the glass. I'll put together an illustrated article on it as soon as I can - I think it might be interesting to see how the whole process hangs together.
Glen
-
... Lalique ... could entrust Franckhauser with no more than a pencil sketch and leave him to work it up into a finished design. ...
Rene Lalique and Etienne Franckhauser understood each other perfectly. Franckhauser would turn Lalique's idea into a plaster model.
It was the partnership that produced the beautiful designs, not one individual. Lalique was the ideas man, Franckhauser was the sculptor. The two are inseparable. I get very frustrated to see Lalique getting all the credit, and, more often than not, Franckhauser's essential contribution totally ignored.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to see an exhibition of Franckhauser's plaster models for Lalique, Sabino, Jobling, Hunebelle and others, placing him in his rightful place as one of the world's greatest ever sculptors. However, I doubt it would ever happen. The art world would probably regard grubby bits of plaster as something of a joke. You need huge chunks of bronze to be taken seriously!
And that was me letting off steam. You should have seen my first draft!
Bernard C. 8)
-
Apologies in advance for a potentially quite boring post but being something of an obsessive collector of jobling, I was fascinated by Glen's discovery and re-examined some of my pieces as a result. I have previously shared some of my observations regarding the possible differences between Jobling and Sowerby production with Glen, however, having recently joined this message board, i thought it a good time to revisit this topic and add a few more comments that may be of help in distinguishing between the two makers.
http://tinypic.com/k0j24j.jpg
The amber example in the picture, though unmarked is almost certainly Jobling given it's colour, finish and height. The pink vase I believe to be Sowerby as it is generally softer in detail and shorter. What is of note is that both are below 8 inches in height, the pink one is 7 1/2", matching the Sowerby catalogued height while the amber vase measures 7 3/4 inches, 1/4" below the dimension given in the Jobling catalogue. This does not appear unusual as I have a large Jobling example (marked Regn. Applied for) which measures 9 3/4 inches; again 1/4" below catalogue height.
Another difference is in the treatment of the tall central tail feather, the small amber Jobling vase shows virtually no feather detailing, the large vase shows fine hatching (excuse the pun!) towards the base, matching the treatment on the wings and rest of the tail. Because of this, I assume the small vase should have similar detailing but it just hasn't taken well on my example & may have been further obscured by the acid frosting.
The pink vase in comparison shows more pronounced horizontal ribbing extending the full height of the tail, showing this part of the mould to have been reworked at some time.
Examining the foot on the pink vase, it is possible to make out the impression of a small rectangular repair to the mould, where a new piece of metal has been let in where the two parts come together. Obviously I don't know when this was done but it shows the mould was older when this vase was produced.
Finally, there is a general difference in finish with the pink example having been apparently much more heavily melted/ fire polished, further softening the detail. This is particularly noticeable around the birds & foot, perhaps explained by Sowerby's practice of 'Double Melting'? http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,579.0.html (thanks Adam for a fascinating post).
I hope I haven't bored anybody too much! :wink:
Steven
-
Steven - many thanks for the extra information and detailed observations of the differences between the two versions of the vase. I'm most grateful to you - and you most certainly haven't bored me. :D
Glen
-
:D :D :D
Hi, I've asked my brother about his lampshade. He says there is no reg. number on it. He also said he'd just assumed it was Jobling because of its similarity to bowls and other lampshades (eg. my pink rose shade). He said there was a bowl in Miller's glass of the '20's and '30's, (Jeanette Hayhurst) and the reg. no. was780717, but that the number was only used for a limited period. Doesn't say why, but my brother speculates that it might spoil the appearance of the shade.
I don't care who made it, I just want it :mrgreen:!
-
Just got a small Bird & panel with moulded registration number, the first marked example I have seen. It is pink and measure 7 5/8 inches high, fractionally shorter than my amber example.
Unusually the reg number is on the upper surface of the foot. There is also what appears to be a moulded number 1 to the underside. The vase has made me rethink some of my previous comments, both in terms of its height and in that the moulding is not as crisp as others I have owned.
I haven't got round to photographing it yet but will try to add a picture as soon as I get chance.
For now the mystery continues........ :?
-
Glen and Steven,
it's really a thrilling thread! Thank you!
-
Just looking through some old posts and came across this one...
I have now finally got round to photographing my small bird & panel with the reg number & have posted the images in my Jobling gallery:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-2631
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-2630
The pictures aren't great quality, they were taken in a rush but you can just make out the reg. number on the upper surface of the foot in the second picture, just below the bird's feet.
Height of this vase is 7 5/8 inches; shorter than the catalogued height of 8 inches.
-
Reviving this topic again as I have now taken a photograph illustrating some of the differences between my amber and pink small bird and panel vases.
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-7477
The amber vase on the left is almost certaily Jobling, possibly very early production as it has a crispness which is often lacking in other examples and the mould seams on the foot are very neat and barely discernible. Pink vase has a number of differences, notably the ribbing in the tail feathers. the mould seams are much less tight and two of them show signs of repair sections to the mould. Certainly the pink vase is much later and I believe it may be Sowerby production; the pink colour is not consistent with any other of my Jobling pieces. Amber vase stands 7 3/4 inches tall while pink vase is 7 1/2 inches tall.
-
Came upon this thread while doing a search for 'Etienne' - Bernard, your title gave me a really good laugh!