Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Leni on September 12, 2010, 06:43:29 PM
-
I bought these two items together, and the seller was convinced they were meant to be used together, but I'm not convinced. The little plate (5 inches / 12.5cm) is marked 'Stuart England', in the script which identifies it as being made between 1930 and 1950, and the candle holder (just under 2 inches / 5cm tall and 3 & 1/2 inches / 9cm diameter across the top) is not marked at all. But it's the cutting which looks to me as if they don't go together :huh:
Would love to hear what other people think. Thanks.
-
Hi Leni,
I agree that the patterns don't appear to be the same. I'd also suggest that it ain't a candleholder, but a small posy bowl with flat rim ;) :)
Cheers, Nigel
-
I'd agree with Nigel, not a match, and surely a posy holder. I have one which is similar in shape with a star base, but a different cut pattern on the top... no maker's mark on this either sadly. :(
-
Nigel! :D Great to see you back here! :hi: I've missed you!
OK, thanks to both of you for your help. Not a candle holder, but a small posy bowl then ::) And it seems we are agreed that they don't belong together. So is the posy bowl even Stuart? :spls: Since it isn't marked, and the two items don't actually belong together, I see no reason to suppose it is! Anyone any idea what it might be? Is the cutting any sort of a clue? I would have thought your fairly distinctive rose pattern cutting was recognisable, Anne! :huh:
-
I thought so too Leni but it's defied my ID attempts so far. :( Does yours have any sort of age wear to it? Mine doesn't.
-
Leni — Your mushroom posy four cut bars pattern is echoed in Stuart vase square bases (Benson & Hayhurst #69, #70), whereas the three short rim cuts are Walsh/Farquharson Ayr pattern (Reynolds fig.152).
Anne — Your foliage on the mushroom posy is Walsh (Reynolds fig.56 (iii)), whereas the very low angled cuts (Benson calls them "mitre cuts") of the rose petals are a well-known Stuart/Kny feature (Benson & Hayhurst #17–19, #22–27, #63–68).
Two excellent examples of how you can "prove" the attribution you desire by picking the appropriate feature. ;D
That's why I like three independent features to support an unmarked cut attribution. :angel:
Grateful thanks to both of you, and I hope someone comes up with marked examples of your respective posy vases to provide a certain attribution.
Bernard C. 8)
Moderators: please, eventually, can this particularly useful topic be archived for reference. It's not often that we have such a clear example of the hazards of attribution.
-
Thanks very much for that useful education in how not to jump to conclusions, Bernard! ;D :kissy:
-
Leni — Thank you. I'll cut out and frame your words (well, I would if the printer was working, there was some blank paper to hand, and I could find the scissors).
It would be even more useful as a reference about the hazards of attribution if your posy turned out to be Tudor and Anne's Webb Corbett, neither of which is outwith the bounds of possibility! ;D
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard, thank you, that's really useful to know. :kissy:
Now fingers crossed we can pin them down properly. :thup:
-
Bernard,
A very good arguement for being circumspect about jumping to conclusions on attribution. As my old pa-in-law used to say, "I couldn't have put it better myself!" :)
Nigel
PS. Thanks for the welcome back Leni - an extended trip down to Mum's account's for a goodly part of the time not calling in here, N
-
A new use for all the redundant posy vases lying unloved around the world :24:
Perhaps we can start a new craze :usd:
-
:24: Perhaps a moderator should change the title from candle holder to posy bowl? ;D
-
Done. :)