Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: ahremck on July 23, 2010, 12:16:36 PM
-
This is a large (c.30cms tall) vase in beautiful condition. I assume it is czech but have no real knowledge.
Ross
-
Almost certainly Bohemian (not Czech, too old) late 19th/early 20th century. One of the better decorators certainly. This sort of glass was often made in one factory and decorated by another company (possibly by home workers).
Base shots help. I'll have a look when I get home.
You'll be getting unpopular for flooding the board. None of us minds answering questions but 3 or 4 requests every few days gives someone else a chance to get their question answered before it falls off the bottom of the page.
-
I'm getting confused with the number of queries you're posting - I keep looking at the same ones I know nothing about, over and over, I'm possibly missing ones I might be able to say something about, and I'm loosing other folk's posts.....
-
Can't find the shape in my books. What's the base like?
-
Just finished turning over the garage - found the vase and here are three new photos.
Ross
-
This looks like a ceramic piece, not glass!
-
Funny enough thats what i thought and the flowers are similar to Old Hall style decorating .
-
I assure you with the present state of my catalog showing 769 glass objects - IT IS GLASS!!!!!! ::) Yes I do have a lot of the other stuff as well. 8)
The actual glass of the body is quite thick - 3 to 4 mms. So I can to some extent understand your concerns with its appearance, BUT...
Ross
-
It's the base that's of concern. An item like this would be mould blown and would generally have a flat (ish) base straight from the mould with a ground or fire polished rim or a pontil mark of some sort. This sort of base is generally seen on pressed glass or something with an applied foot. It wouldn't be the first time that one of the more knowledgeable people on here had been fooled by a ceramic item.
-
I have never seen a base like that on glass, but have on ceramic. It could possibly be a piece of thick bone china..... The base has the look of a fired piece.....
Personally, I would be quite surprised if it is actually glass.....
Craig
-
with a ground or fire polished rim
By rim I meant top rim.
-
;D :ooh: I would imagine even the less knowledgeable people (like myself) would be able to distinguish between china/ceramic and glass, maybe not from a photo, but actually in the hand, so I'm not not going to doubt Ross when he say's this piece is glass. :spls: :wsh:
Robert.
-
Not always...
-
two penn'th from an amateur, for what they're worth. For glass items the following are usually evident..............the ground of the body does usually have a high gloss finish, like this piece - and to boot, this colour is not untypical of glass from the Bohemian mas produced/flower painted period of 1880 - 1918. If the piece is glass, the base will NOT usually show the white or biscuit body that a ceramic piece usually will do. The ground/polished rim is typical of the period, FOR GLASS. I agree that the indented base is somewhat untypical, but for me the painting - on this coloured body, looks right.
............thick bone china..... .........this, of course, is a contradiction of terms.
-
Thick bone china is not a contradiction in terms. It is a type of ceramic made from bone ash and kaolin (plus other things); there is no definition of thickness involved.
It was only when we saw the base that we doubted that it was glass.
-
Certainly doesent look like glass to me especially the base. Its all just wrong to be made of glass.
Mike www.abfabglass.co.uk
-
Ross, I'm not doubting you but I have received a bowl that the owner described as not sure whether glass or ceramic and I took a flyer - I could see why she wasn't sure but it was ceramic. For what it is worth to me the pics of the top and the inside at the top look like that particular opaque glass of that period.
I was jokingly going to suggest that the only way to tell is to break it - but only a joke ;D Is the rim chipped at all? (possibly I'm the only one who has chipped glass so apologies if that is the case :-[) If it has chipped anywhere can you get a close up of it to check the texture? If not, I have to say I have seen vases that have at one time or another been 'cemented' to the mantelpiece in the pub. The base then has a vague coating of something which makes it look strange. I also want to ask a question. If that base looks like a ceramic base, what if the glass has been mould blown into a mould with that base shape? or does that never happen?
m
-
there is no definition of thickness involved...........that may be true Christine, technically.......however, by general concensus, bone china is traditionally thin - trunsluscent - i.e. it is known historically for its thin cross section of body, and would not be described as thick. Thick is usually pottery. :)
p.s. I was also (jokingly) going to suggest to ross that breakage might be the only real way to be sure.
-
I ran a weekly auction for several years and have seen my fair share of "stuff". Although the definition of the term Bone China is generally accepted to be thin china, the term applies, as Christine noted, to a composition and not a thickness. It is on occasion used to form items that are thick. These items, unless examined from the underside can appear to have the look of glass, as this piece does. the dull and unground surface on the underside around the rim, combined with what appears to me at least to be remanants of firing would lead me to strongly believe this to not be glass.
I can not tell from the pic all that well, but it appears that the inner and outer edge of the mouth are not sharp, or beveled as in a ground lip, but are instead softer and curved. This would also lead me to believe that it is not glass, as China would have this look, and a mouth blown and ground piece, which this would have to be, would generally not have a "soft" edge, but sharp or beveled.
Although I have seen many pieces of glass which have been fired after the application of enamels, I have yet to see a piece of glass which appears as this does around the underside edge.... rough and a different color and texture. Flat instead of glossy from sitting on a surface when fired......
Aside from seeing many pieces in person that fooled knowledgeable people until small details were pointed out, I believe there have been a few instances on the board where "glass" pieces posted by those with a reasonable level of knowledge have turned out not to be glass.......
One of the reasons for using Bone China in a thick configuration is it is more durable than thin china, and can hold up to use better. It also gives the appearance of glass, without many of the issues of blowing a piece of glass such as this......
Just some observations.....
Craig
-
Failing one of the recognised experts dropping in for a cuppa - and you would be welcome - I have endeavoured to take more photos in the forlorn hope you might be able to indicate which GLASS company may have made the vase.
Photo #1 - is of the upper rim. It is highly polished and has both edges neatly finished There is a gold band around the outside c.2mm below the rim. For the Pottery/china experts where did the outer glaze end? :huh:
Photo #2 - is of the base. Reflection makes me think that this vase was either blown into a mould or perhaps used a centrifugal system - but the slight variation of the rim thickness mitigates against the latter. As you can see not all of the outer base area has been ground - but again I ask the experts where does the so-called glaze end.
Photo #3 - is a photo of the interior showing the shadow of some of the decoration. The glass as I said is some 4 to 5mm thick and I have yet to see a pottery vase with walls that thick that will transmit any light let alone what you see here.
Photo #4 - is a photo os the inside of the neck showing the collar bands to be matched by grooves - what you would expect if the vase hase been made in a mould. If the piece had had the collars added by hand I would expect to see a flat wall.
-
Those are better. ;D Remember we only have what you show us to go on, so if we dispute you have to provide evidence to refute.
Yes, it is glass, but painted pieces are notoriously difficult to attribute. There were numerous Bohemian/Czech refiners (decorators) and numerous manufacturers (some of whom did their own decorating). The fact that no one (so far contributing) has seen such a base makes ID even less likely.
I think possibly Bohemian/Czech and maybe late 19th/early 20th century may be the best you get. Beigey brown is not even an unusual colour.
-
Thank you Christine - the unusual base, the absence of chips, the thickness of the glass, the very "moriage" like decoration have me stumped. I assumed it was Bohemian and I certainly am not trying to sell it.
However, it did peeve me a little to have some six/seven people tell me I am idiot who can't tell glass from Pottery/China. I have been collecting for c. 30 years and I too have seen lots and lots of STUFF including that Moorcroft-like pottery from a few years back that was actually glass made to look like pottery.
Ross
-
hello ross............for me the word 'moriage' is a new one completely - thanks for that, and just goes to show how much we can all learn on a forum such as this. :) I don't for a moment believe that anyone seriously thought you an idiot, but I'm a little surprised that some persisted in doubting that it was glass. I'm one of the least knoweldgable here, but having seen a few of these pieces over the past decade felt I recogized the pointers for glass as opposed to ceramic. The clincher of course, is in the last two pics. showing the transmitted light - had we seen those images first, then I doubt the problem would has arisen. As Christine has commented, these things were made by many outputs, over many years, and unless signed it is highly unlikely you will ever arrive at an attribution. However, nice vase, and hope you might use it for decoration or flowers. :)
-
Nobody mentioned the word idiot, LOL. And I can assure you that some venerable and experienced glass collectors on here have been fooled by ceramics and that we eventually dug down to the truth, as we have here. It wasn't personal; just an attempt to get to the truth.
It's like when I'm editing: if I question something someone has written or edit it radically, there is no point in the writer being precious about their words. If I feel the need to change something, it's because I'm not getting the right message or understanding what they are saying. I only have what is in front of me, not what is in their head as well. The writer needs to think about why I don't understand.
-
Ross, I think it just exemplifies the extreme difficulty in getting a feeling for a piece without actually being able to handle it. For me, that is why, unless I know and have held a piece of glass, buying a piece on ebay is so troublesome. Descriptions that people give include what is in their head/the knowledge they already have about a piece - and actually I sometimes have great difficulty seeing what they are 'seeing' even if their description is quite good. I've also been very surprised when I eventually did make it to a glass fair, when I saw and held pieces that I had imagined to be very different than they turned out to be. I used to covet certain pieces of glass until I actually saw them - once I held them I decided not. And conversely the case as well - there are lots of examples I could give but one I recall clearly experiencing is I have quite a few pieces of Tamara Aladin glass and could never understand the interest in a Nanny Still Tiimalasi piece... until I actually bought one and it was absolutely beautiful. Pictures do not always speak a thousand words. Well, I'm glad you didn't break it ;D It looks quite orangey fiery when you hold it against the light, so it may have bone ash content. It's a pretty colour. And I think with that base, you may one day come upon another as it is quite different. Never say never ;D
m
-
Based on these images it certainly looks like glass..... based on the previous set it looked like ceramic......
The real lesson here for me is that pics are the very most important part of the start of a conversation.......
and I agree with Christine... no one inferred anyone was an idiot......
If we all agreed all the time, no one on here would ever learn anything.....
One of the difficulties of attributing decorated pieces such as this is that in many cases, especially the Bohemian glass that I am the most familiar with, decorating houses were, in many cases, different from the glass house that produced the blank. The end result is that you end up with what we term on our site to be a dual attribution, such as a Kralik blank decorated by Hosch..... if both companies involved in the piece can be determined at all..
Craig